As a novel method for creatively engaging citizens and stakeholders to find solutions to complex problems, co-design holds great promise for policy makers. It has been vaunted as a way to generate more innovative ideas, ensure policies and services match the needs of citizens, achieve economic efficiencies by improving responsiveness, foster cooperation and trust between different groups, meaningfully engage the 'hard to reach', and achieve support for change. This article considers how we might determine whether co-design has real potential to dramatically improve policy processes and outcomes. Drawing on relevant literature on participatory design, design thinking and public sector innovation, this review explores the meaning and potential of co-design in the context of public policy. It highlights the philosophical underpinnings and normative implications of participatory design, and questions the feasibility of achieving the promised outcomes in the challenging context of contemporary policy making.

Governments are increasingly turning to public sector innovation (PSI) labs to take new approaches to policy and service design. This turn towards PSI labs, which has accelerated in more recent years, has been linked to a number of trends. These include growing interest in evidence-based policymaking and the application of 'design thinking' to policymaking, although these trends sit uncomfortably together. According to their proponents, PSI labs are helping to create a new era of experimental government and rapid experimentation in policy design. But what do these PSI labs do? How do they differ from other public sector change agents and policy actors? What approaches do they bring to addressing contemporary policymaking? And how do they relate to other developments in policy design such as the growing interest in evidence-based policy and design experiments? The rise of PSI labs has thus far received little attention from policy scientists. Focusing on the problems associated with conceptualising PSI labs and clearly situating them in the policy process, this paper provides an analysis of some of the most prominent PSI labs. It examines whether labs can be classified into distinct types, their relationship to government and other policy actors and the principal methodological practices and commitments underpinning their approach to policymaking. Throughout, the paper considers how the rise of PSI labs may challenge positivist framings of policymaking as an empirically driven decision process.

Responding to the need for innovation, governments have begun experimenting with ‘design thinking’ approaches to reframe policy issues and generate and test new policy solutions. This paper examines what is new about design thinking and compares this to rational and participatory approaches to policymaking, highlighting the difference between their logics, foundations and the basis on which they ‘speak truth to power’. It then examines the impact of design thinking on policymaking in practice, using the example of public sector innovation (PSI) labs. The paper concludes that design thinking, when it comes in contact with power and politics, faces significant challenges, but that there are opportunities for design thinking and policymaking to work better together.

Governments are increasingly establishing innovation labs to enhance public problem solving. Despite the speed at which these new units are being established, they have only recently begun to receive attention from public management scholars. This study assesses the extent to which labs are enhancing strategic policy capacity through pursuing more collaborative and citizen-centred approaches to policy design. Drawing on original case study research of five labs in Australia and New Zealand, it examines the structure of lab's relationships to government partners, and the extent and nature of their activities in promoting citizen-participation in public problem solving.

As the complexity of policy problems is increasingly recognized, and participatory approaches gain popularity, policy workers are applying different methods to engage a wide range of stakeholders and citizens in policy development and implementation. Alongside burgeoning interest in various forms of design and systems thinking, systemic design has emerged as a descriptor for a practice that integrates dialogue, design and co-creation for sensemaking and decision-making. As an approach to participatory policymaking, systemic design involves creating the conditions for stakeholders to more meaningfully participate in building shared knowledge and taking collective action. This article puts forth a new practice framework for systemic design in public policy and social innovation. It distills insights from the author's experience and knowledge as a researcher, evaluator, practitioner and educator in the design and delivery of public policy and human services. The five core domains of the practice framework-principles, place, people, process and practice-are based on established understandings of design-led, systemsinformed and participatory approaches to policymaking, as well as knowledge from critical practice reflections, recent research and evaluation reports. The relevance of the practice framework is illustrated through a case study of a design-led approach to a community services policy in New Zealand. Examples from the case study demonstrate some of the benefits and challenges of systemic innovation and participatory policy design.