Co-Assessment
The method
Co-assessment is the process of evaluating projects, policies, or innovations together with the people they affect, while there is still room to adjust. Rather than measuring success only at the end, it clarifies and tests what success means throughout the work, feeding what is learned back into the process so teams can adapt as they go.
It is especially valuable when different worlds need to align: strategic goals and delivery constraints on one side, lived experience and trust on the other. The process often begins with the prompt “This will be successful if…”, surfacing expectations and conditions for acceptance early on. These are then turned into practical criteria that guide design choices, implementation, communication, and course corrections as the work evolves.
Depending on the project, co-assessment can range from facilitated conversations to define shared success criteria, to a fuller evaluation approach combining feedback instruments with qualitative analysis. In all cases, the criteria are shaped by the people involved, not imposed from outside.
We begin by clarifying the decision the co-assessment needs to support: what is being assessed, what is still flexible, and what evidence or experience is already available. We then identify who should be involved so the assessment reflects a genuine range of perspectives, including those often least heard yet most affected.
Through structured facilitation, we work with participants to define what “good” looks like, what would undermine trust or usefulness, and what conditions would make outcomes workable in practice. Where the project calls for it, we develop evaluation methods and instruments tailored to the context, so that progress can be tracked in a grounded way rather than relying on assumptions.
The result is a shared reference point that teams can use to interpret progress, adjust course, and explain decisions transparently. Co-assessment does not end with a set of criteria: we revisit them at key moments, reflect on what is working and what is not, and help teams fold that learning back into their work.
Co-assessment can function as a standalone module or be integrated into a wider engagement process such as co-design or co-creation, where it helps ground participatory work in clear, revisitable criteria.
The process
Learn more about co-assessment
A clear, shared understanding of what “success” means for your work. We capture stakeholders’ expectations in plain language, including what they need to see for the outcome to feel useful, fair, and credible. We document what matters most, where views align, and where they differ, so you can make informed choices rather than guessing what people will accept later.
- Surface important concerns early, while changes are still possible.
- Build a grounded basis for prioritising, adjusting, or explaining trade-offs.
- Replace generic claims with clear criteria, clear reasoning, and clear next steps, rooted in what stakeholders actually told you.
- Strengthen trust and credibility with the people your work is meant to serve.
A light-touch co-assessment can be run as a focused session to define success criteria and priorities (approximately 40–80h).
A deeper approach revisits those criteria at key moments to reflect on progress and adjust course (approximately 150–250h). The total effort depends mainly on the number of stakeholder groups involved and the level of recruitment and preparation needed.
Age-Friendly AI is a programme that brings older adults’ perspectives into the conversation around AI research, policy, and service design. Stickydot supported the programme by designing and facilitating the engagement activities and by embedding co-assessment throughout the process, making sure that what counts as “success” was defined by the people the work is meant to serve, not assumed by the team.
- Co-creation of the evaluation framework. Developing a mixed-methods approach with partners and participants, combining rapid feedback instruments with in-depth qualitative analysis.
- Definition of success criteria with participants. Through Citizens’ Think-Ins and local workshops, surfacing older adults’ hopes, concerns and lived experiences, and turning these into usable evaluation criteria.
- Continuous learning and iteration. Using the co-defined framework to learn from participants and iterate on concepts and prototypes. Curating reflection sessions and accessible reporting to feed findings back into the work.
- Interpretation and recommendations. Translating findings into practical recommendations for design, ethics and implementation, grounded in what participants shared throughout the process.
Interested to chat with us and explore an idea further?
Don’t hesitate to send a quick message to info@stickydot.eu and schedule a short half-hour call with us, at your convenience.
