Co-Producing Technology Solutions with People Who Have Learning Disabilities

July 15, 2026

Co-producing technology with people who have learning disabilities means sharing influence over what is developed, how it is introduced and whether it remains in use. Within the wider Learning Disability Services Knowledge Hub, this reflects a broader commitment to rights, accessible communication, person-centred support and meaningful participation.

Strong approaches to technology and digital enablement in learning disability services should be shaped with people rather than designed around them. They must also connect with established learning disability service models and support pathways, so co-production influences ordinary delivery rather than sitting separately as a short consultation exercise.

Co-production is demonstrated when people can change the proposed solution, reject parts of it and influence what happens next.

What co-producing technology means

Co-production involves people with learning disabilities as active partners in identifying needs, exploring options, designing features, testing arrangements and reviewing results. It goes further than asking for feedback after a provider or supplier has already made the main decisions.

The process may involve one person shaping technology for their own support or a wider group influencing a service-level system. People may help determine the wording of prompts, the layout of an application, the timing of alerts, privacy settings, staff responses or the measures used to judge whether the solution works.

Co-production does not require everyone to have technical knowledge. Providers are responsible for making the choices understandable and creating practical ways for people to contribute. This may involve demonstrations, photographs, prototypes, role play, supported trials or repeated discussions rather than written questionnaires.

Why it matters in real services

Technology designed without meaningful involvement can solve the wrong problem. Staff may assume that someone needs more reminders when the real issue is that routines change between shifts. A provider may install monitoring to reduce risk even though the person experiences the arrangement as intrusive and would prefer a different safeguard.

Consultation can also become tokenistic. People may be shown one completed option and asked whether they like it, with no realistic opportunity to influence the design. Positive responses are then recorded as co-production even though the main decisions were already fixed.

The practical consequences include poor uptake, frustration, distress and equipment that remains unused. Providers should be able to evidence how people’s contributions changed the proposed arrangement and how disagreements were addressed.

What good co-production looks like

Strong services begin with an open question about the person’s experience, rather than presenting a preferred technological answer. They identify what currently works, where barriers exist and what the person wants to be different.

Information is provided accessibly and at a manageable pace. People are shown genuine alternatives, including the option not to use technology. Trials take place in familiar environments, and feedback is gathered through observation, communication aids, behaviour, direct conversation and the views of people who know the individual well.

Good co-production is iterative. The provider expects to adjust the solution after testing and does not treat the first design as final. Strong services demonstrate what people said, what changed and why any suggestion could not be implemented.

Operational example 1: Co-producing a digital daily planner

Context: Three people living in a shared supported living setting used a wall timetable prepared by staff. They often missed changes because the information was updated in writing and did not reflect how each person preferred to communicate.

Support approach: The provider invited each person to help design a digital planner. Staff used photographs, sample screens and short demonstrations to explore preferred images, colours, audio prompts and the amount of information displayed.

Day-to-day delivery: A trial version was placed on a shared tablet, with individual profiles for each resident. People selected their own photographs and recorded some prompts in familiar voices. Staff tested the planner during real routines and noted where screens caused confusion or contained too many choices.

How effectiveness was evidenced: The final design removed several unused functions and introduced a simpler home screen based directly on feedback. Missed activities reduced, and all three people began checking the planner without staff initiation. Records showed which design decisions came from each person’s contribution.

Moving from consultation to shared design

Co-production needs to begin early enough to influence the outcome. The principles described in person-centred technology built around choice, control and independence provide a useful foundation because they place the person’s desired life outcome before the device or system.

Shared design can be organised around practical stages. People can help define the problem, identify what success would look like, compare alternatives, test a prototype and review the impact. Providers should avoid compressing all of this into one meeting.

Disagreement is part of genuine co-production. A person may want fewer safeguards than staff or family members feel comfortable with. The response should not be to remove their influence. The provider should explore the concern, assess capacity where relevant, clarify risks and identify a proportionate arrangement.

Where several people are involved, differences should remain visible. A service-wide solution may need personalised settings rather than one standard design applied to everyone.

Operational example 2: Co-producing a safer cooking arrangement

Context: A woman wanted to cook independently, while staff were concerned about previous occasions when she had left the hob switched on. The first proposal involved continuous kitchen monitoring, which she rejected.

Support approach: Staff explored several alternatives with her using demonstrations in her own kitchen. She preferred an automatic hob shut-off device, a visual checklist and one planned staff check rather than continuous observation.

Day-to-day delivery: She helped choose where the checklist would be displayed and which photographs it contained. Staff trialled the arrangement across familiar meals, recorded when the shut-off device activated and asked for her feedback after each session.

How effectiveness was evidenced: She completed 12 cooking sessions without continuous supervision and reported feeling more trusted. The device activated once and she responded correctly to the alert. The final plan reflected her preferred balance between privacy and safety rather than the provider’s original proposal.

Workforce systems and consistent participation

Staff need to understand that co-production is part of delivery, not an optional engagement activity. Teams should know how to present information accessibly, avoid leading questions and recognise non-verbal expressions of preference.

Supervision should examine whose voice shaped the decision. Managers can ask what the person wanted, what changed because of their involvement and whether staff convenience influenced the final arrangement.

Handovers should capture feedback arising during everyday use. A person may appear comfortable during a formal trial but show frustration when the technology is used at a busy time or by unfamiliar staff. These observations should feed back into design and review.

Where digital projects involve suppliers, procurement, records or organisational infrastructure, the complete seven-part guide to technology and digital care provides a broader framework. Providers still need to ensure that technical and commercial decisions do not close down meaningful involvement.

Operational example 3: Co-producing independent travel support

Context: A young man wanted to travel alone to college. Staff proposed continuous location tracking, but he said he did not want people watching every journey.

Support approach: The team used accessible scenarios to explore different options with him. He chose location sharing only during agreed journey times, alongside two scheduled check-ins and a clear process for unexpected delays.

Day-to-day delivery: He helped set the check-in times, selected the route information shown on his phone and practised turning location sharing on and off. The arrangement was documented through a co-produced positive risk-taking plan.

How effectiveness was evidenced: He completed eight independent journeys and successfully used the contingency process during one cancellation. Location access remained limited to agreed periods, and he could explain who could see the information. The outcome combined increased independence with privacy safeguards he had helped design.

Governance and evidence

Providers should maintain an audit trail showing how co-production influenced the technology. Records should include the person’s goals, communication methods, accessible materials used, options explored, feedback received, changes made and reasons for decisions.

Evidence should combine process and outcome measures. Process evidence may show attendance, accessible involvement, prototype testing and design amendments. Outcome evidence may include increased independent use, reduced frustration, improved task completion or greater confidence.

Qualitative evidence is particularly important. People’s words, choices, observed responses and feedback from trusted supporters can show whether the solution feels useful, respectful and understandable.

This creates a clear line of sight from the person’s contribution to the final design, staff action and resulting outcome. Strong services demonstrate not just that people were involved, but that their influence was real.

Commissioner and CQC expectations

Commissioners are likely to expect providers to show how people with learning disabilities shape digital services and how co-production improves accessibility, uptake and outcomes. They may also look for evidence that involvement includes people with different communication needs rather than only confident speakers.

CQC may examine whether people are involved in decisions, supported to communicate preferences and treated with dignity and respect. Relevant evidence includes consent, accessible information, responsiveness, least restrictive practice and the person’s own experience of the technology.

Strong services demonstrate that co-production continues after implementation. People remain able to challenge, change or withdraw from digital arrangements as their needs and preferences evolve.

Common pitfalls

Asking for feedback only after the main decisions have been made.
Presenting one option and describing agreement as co-production.
Using inaccessible meetings, documents or technical language.
Relying only on verbal contributors and excluding people with complex communication needs.
Failing to record what changed because of people’s involvement.
Treating disagreement as resistance rather than useful evidence.
Allowing staff, family or supplier preferences to dominate the process.
Testing technology outside the person’s ordinary environment.
Assuming one co-produced design will suit everyone.
Ending involvement once the technology has been installed.

Conclusion

Co-producing technology means sharing meaningful influence from the earliest discussion through to implementation and review. People with learning disabilities should be able to shape the purpose, design, safeguards and measures of success.

Strong providers make involvement accessible, respond visibly to feedback and remain open to changing or rejecting proposed solutions. When co-production is genuine, technology is more likely to reflect real lives, protect rights and deliver outcomes that people themselves recognise as valuable.