Over the past five years, the Finna Services^[1] of the National Library of Finland (NLF) has improved the approachability of cultural heritage materials for schools. By developing and introducing new authoring tools and processes, Finna Services has facilitated the national curation of cultural heritage material packages for educational purposes. These material packages are promoted in a newly created content area for schools, known as Finna Classroom, which is part of the broader Finna.fi search service. The concept of utilising curated material packages to enhance the approachability of cultural heritage materials has evolved over these five years, expanding the scope of material packages beyond just learning.

The initiative began after the discovery that teachers were unable to effectively use the rich and valuable materials available on Finna.fi. It became clear that teachers needed resources that could be easily aligned with the curriculum. In response, Finna Services started efforts to enable cultural heritage organisations to curate material packages from individual digitised items already published on Finna.fi.

For years, libraries, archives, and museums (LAM) in Finland had been expressing a general desire for shared tools to curate material packages from cultural heritage materials. Although this wish was common, no single organisation had taken responsibility for initiating the development project within the LAM sector. Within the Finna ecosystem, there was a clear work division between who was responsible for providing the shared discovery platform and for content, but it was unclear as to who would provide the shared content platform. This responsibility gap hindered progress. Human-centred design and co-creation methods played a crucial role in moving the project forward.

This case is interesting on multiple levels. At the most obvious level, it provides insights into the needs of teachers and the desires of cultural heritage organisations. From a LAM ecosystem management perspective, it is a success story of how the ecosystem innovatively developed a new service, requiring adjustments in roles and responsibilities.

In this article, we describe the case, outline how the work proceeded and the methods used, and share insights from the human-centred design work. We examine the case through the question, ‘How did user-centred design and co-creation methods guide and facilitate collaboration in the national service and material provider network?’

Theoretical Background – Ecosystems and Realisation of Value Propositions

To discuss national collaboration in the Finna context, we need to consider ecosystem governance. Ron Adner (2017) introduced the concept of ‘ecosystem-as-structure’, which differs from traditional ecosystem definitions that focus on affiliations between organisations, such as the relationship between a platform owner and component providers or agreements between consortium leader and members. Instead, ecosystem-as-structure views ecosystems as configurations of necessary activities defined by a targeted value proposition. Adner (2017) emphasised the importance of considering the ecosystem when undertaking new activities that require new alignments and responsibilities among a set of partners. He also highlighted the need to identify the specific actions required to realise the value proposition.

Adner’s (2017) theory raises several key points about aligning elements to achieve the value proposition. For instance, expectations for leader–follower roles within systems or sub-systems must align. If the leadership role is unclear, burdensome, risky, or contested, the system or sub-system might lack an actor taking the leadership. Additionally, expectations regarding structures and responsibilities must match, meaning everyone needs to understand their roles. Finally, the expectations for the value proposition itself must also align.

We encountered Adner’s theory after this case in the LAM sector in Finland, but the theory strongly resonates with it. The desire to create a curating platform was evident in this case, but it was unclear who should lead the initiative. The leadership role could be burdensome, and developing the platform could be resource-intensive. Moreover, expectations about what the tool should achieve likely varied significantly.

The value expectation for a public service is not straightforward. In commercial ecosystems, the value expectation typically involves generating enough profit or revenue for all involved parties, with the end customers ultimately providing the money. In public services, the profitability chain is more complex. Public services are funded by society, usually through public governance bodies such as ministries or municipalities, which expect these services to fulfil certain public values and obligations.

In Finland, the purposes of public organisations are typically defined by laws, which outline the reasons for their public funding. For instance, the purpose of the NLF to offer services to other libraries is defined by one law (Ministry of Justice, 2009), the purpose of museums by another (Ministry of Justice, 2019), and the purpose of public libraries by a third one (Ministry of Justice, 2016). Each organisation interprets these laws to fulfil its obligations. As an example of the funding, the Finna Services of the NLF are funded by the Ministry of Education and Culture, and offering materials through Finna services is free for organisations receiving their general funding from the same ministry and the usage of services is free for the end users.

Fuglsang and Rønning (2015) proposed examining public value through value spheres, simplified and modernised from the socio-economic spheres introduced by Weber (1958). These spheres provide five lenses to evaluate the potential value of service innovation: political (also includes fulfilling the purpose of the public organisation), economic, societal, aesthetic, and intellectual. In the context of cultural heritage, the Europeana Foundation (2023) has created the Europeana Impact Playbook to help cultural heritage organisations innovate impactful services. The Playbook introduces five strategic perspectives (environmental, social, operational, innovation, and economic) and four value lenses (existence, legacy, learning, and community) tailored for cultural heritage services i.e. representing very similar thinking but tailored specifically to cultural heritage. Additionally, it is increasingly accepted that public value materialises only when users actually use the services (Osborne & Strokosch, 2013).

When considering the alignment of value expectations within the Finna ecosystem, the value expectation must produce public value, particularly in the eyes of the financier. Organisations within the ecosystem need to see that the new service helps them fulfil their purpose and obligations in their preferred manner. It must also meet end-user needs to ensure actual usage and for the value to materialise.

The production of public services often involves networks of organisations, and it is crucial to manage these networks (O’Flynn, 2007; Stoker, 2006). Studies have suggested that such networks of organisations should be included in innovation work through co-creation methods (Virtanen & Stenvall, 2014). Research has also proposed involving citizens through co-creation methods (Osborne & Strokosch, 2013; Osborne et al., 2013; Radnor et al., 2014).

Co-production can refer to a range of activities (Osborne & Strokosch, 2013). However, in the context of innovating digital services, participative co-production – empowering users to participate in the design of future services – is the most relevant. For this human-centred design, processes have provided a range of methodologies for decades. For instance, the principles of human-centred design processes are defined in ISO-9241-210 (International Organization for Standardization, 2019).

Materials Used to Sketch Timeline and Description of the Case

We realised that the work done on this case serves as an interesting example of how human-centred design and co-creation methods help to advance the Finna ecosystem only after the case was completed. Consequently, there was no initial decision to systematically document the case. However, the design and customer work naturally produced documentation that could be used as artefacts to reconstruct the timeline of events over the years.

For this paper, these documents were utilised to identify individual methods and work phases to construct the case. The artefacts were thoroughly reviewed. The identified work phases and design methods were then added to a comprehensive timeline. Moreover, the artefacts used to identify each phase and method were also documented on the timeline.

The author has worked as a user experience designer for Finna services during the years described in the case and is, therefore, familiar with the details.

Case

Background of Finna Services

Finna Services, managed by the NLF, plays a focal role among LAM organisations in Finland. Finna Services is uniquely positioned to address this challenge faced by LAM organisations. Finna is a shared interface utilised by Finnish LAM organisations, comprising the national search service Finna.fi and a platform service that enables these organisations to develop their own search websites. Furthermore, Finna Services has been operational for a decade and currently involves over 450 LAM organisations that contribute content to the platform. While the creation and maintenance of the platform are managed by the Finna team at the NLF, the content is provided by all participating organisations.
Finna Services caters to two main types of customers, namely LAM organisations, which act as content providers, and citizens, who are the end users of the services and LAM content. The role of LAM organisations is multifaceted; they not only act as customers but also form a consortium and steering group for the consortium to which Finna Services must report their actions and yearly plans.

The Finna Services harvests metadata of individual cultural heritage objects into a shared index from all participating LAM organisations. It offers a search interface for this metadata to end users, allowing them to discover any individual material. If the material contains a digital object link, the Finna platform retrieves the object in real time and displays it to the user. This capability already significantly enhances the discoverability and reusability of cultural heritage materials nationally. However, until now, it has not been possible for organisations to curate material sets from the individual materials available through Finna Services.

Using the definition of a software ecosystem by Manikas and Hansen (2013), the NLF and the network of content provider organisations of Finna Services can be seen as a software ecosystem. The Finna platform interconnects a set of actors and delivers a suite of collaboratively produced services, and each actor operates based on their own interests while fostering a symbiotic relationship through their interactions. The NLF also serves as a focal firm or orchestrator in the Finna ecosystem due to its role as the platform developer.

Stage 1: Creation of the Finna Classroom (2018–2019)

One of the target groups for Finna.fi is teachers. For years, the Finna team at the NLF has worked to raise awareness of the Finna.fi service among teachers, for example, by having an annual exhibition stand at the Educa, a Finnish event for services targeting teachers. By 2018, there were subtle signs that awareness of Finna.fi was already relatively extensive, but this awareness had not translated into actual usage. These signs raised questions as to whether cultural heritage materials were not as useful to teachers as the Finna team believed, or if there were issues with the service that prevented teachers from using it in practice.

To understand the root causes, the Finna team conducted user research with teachers, aiming to clarify two main points. First, they sought to determine whether teachers found cultural heritage materials useful as educational resources. This part of the study involved three teachers: a history teacher, a Finnish language teacher, and an art teacher.

If the teachers had not previously used Finna.fi (which was the case for two out of the three teachers), they were introduced to the service and its user interface (UI). They were then asked to try using materials from Finna.fi in their teaching and to keep a simple diary documenting their experience. No additional requirements, such as the extent to which they should use the materials, were imposed. Afterwards, all the teachers were interviewed about how they had used the materials in their teaching. One of the teachers had already used Finna.fi extensively; therefore, he was interviewed without any training or advice on documenting his user experience. The results confirmed that cultural heritage materials were, indeed, useful to teachers and offered many advantages over general search engines such as Google.

To understand what prevented new users from adopting Finna.fi, the team arranged three group interviews with ideation brainstorming sessions involving different groups of teachers (primary school teachers, Finnish language teachers, and history teachers). The results highlighted that the vast amount of material available on Finna.fi was a double-edged sword. While this volume of material was necessary to cater to different kinds of users, it made it difficult for new users to grasp what was specifically available to them. The everyday reality in schools is that teachers are extremely busy and have limited time to prepare lessons. Spending time on extensive research is challenging, and they rarely end up doing it. Teachers expressed a desire for ready-made, curated material packages connected to curriculum topics, implying a connection to school subjects, specific learning objectives, and age group appropriateness.

The teachers’ feedback indicated a direction which the Finna team could not follow independently. To jointly innovate with content-providing LAM organisations based on these results, the Finna team arranged an open co-creation workshop for Finna’s customer organisations. The early concept idea of the Finna Classroom emerged from this workshop. The workshop also clearly showed that LAM organisations were willing to curate material packages for schools if Finna provided the tools for creating and publishing them.

After processing the workshop results, the Finna team proposed piloting the idea with a small number of organisations using existing tools (the favourite-list feature of the Finna platform and content pages), even though these tools were not ideal. For instance, the favourite-list feature was created for end users to create their own lists using normal user accounts; it was not meant for publishing semi-permanent content. The accounts and lists created using the feature expired if not used for a certain period, and the content was not searchable through normal content search. Moreover, attaching the content created with the feature into Finna.fi content page and publishing that page required Finna.fi admin work; therefore, organisations could not publish their content by themselves. Furthermore, producing language versions (Finnish and Swedish) required creating the versions as completely new material packages. The pilot followed the principles of agile development: seek success or fail fast, start with a minimum viable product (MVP), and see if people use it (Beyer et al., 2004).

Seven LAM organisations participated in the pilot and produced the first material packages. Since LAM organisations are independently responsible for their content work, Finna cannot mandate specific work practices. However, the Finna team used the pilot as an opportunity to study and gain experience in user-centred content design practices. The team hired a history teacher for the duration of the pilot to produce some example material packages and be available to assist any of the pilot organisations. This teacher also created ready-made pedagogical utilisation ideas for their packages if organisations did not create them themselves. This pilot phase helped the Finna team formulate general instructions and recommendations for organisations when the production of material packages was opened to any LAM organisation within the Finna consortium. This phase was documented in detail and has been described and analysed further in a separate publication by Peltonen and Nieminen (2023).

At the end of 2019, the first version of the Finna Classroom was published as a content area under Finna.fi with circa 20 Finnish packages and their Swedish equivalents. Since then, the number of new packages created by LAM organisations steadily increased to approximately eight new Finnish packages with their Swedish equivalents per year, until the opportunity to publish new packages was closed in 2023 in anticipation of a new material package tool. At the end of 2023, there were approximately 53 Finnish material packages and their Swedish equivalents, if materials were suitable for Swedish usage e.g. they were pictures and not Finnish text based artefacts like letters.^[2]

Table 1 summarises the human-centred design and co-creation methods used in Stage 1, the parties responsible for executing methods and those only involved as participants, the main outcomes of the stage, and the artefacts used to construct the timeline for the stage.

Stage 2: Running the Initial Finna Classroom (2020–2022)

Between 2020 and 2022, the Finna Classroom experienced growth and increased popularity. The COVID-19 pandemic further spurred teachers’ interest in using digital materials in education and prompted LAM organisations to seek digital methods to offer their services. The material packages continued to be created using the same tools (favourite lists on the Finna platform and content pages) as in the pilot phase. The favourite lists were originally a feature of the VuFind platform (an open software platform used by Finna Services), designed for end-users to create their own lists of favourite materials for private or semi-private use. These lists already included features that allowed them to be made public enough to be shareable via a link or through automated methods such as RSS feeds. Users could also add short notes to items on their favourite lists. Before this innovation, site administrators were already using these lists to create shortlists for image carousel components displayed on the front page or content pages.

In the Finna Classroom usage, representatives from organisations who wanted to create a material package would compile a favourite list with the materials in the correct order and add headings, introductions, and descriptions according to specific guidelines. For more complex packages with sub-content, multiple lists were created. A Finna team member with admin rights would then manually create a webpage under Finna.fi, where the list and its additional content would be added. The Finna admin would also manually add the new page to the Finna Classroom front page, which listed all available material packages.

Finna Classroom had a policy that all material packages should be offered in both official languages (Finnish and Swedish) unless the material required a specific language for proper use. In practice, each language version was produced as a new list and new content page, with new links to the language version from the front page of the Finna Classroom. This practice led to a multiplication of manually created and updated web pages, and the increased administrative workload began to create a bottleneck.

To make the timing of admin work for adding packages to the Finna Classroom more predictable, the Finna team introduced periods during which new organisations could join and offer packages. These periods began with a common kick-off event to remind organisations of the design guidelines and ended with a common review offering also quality control opportunities.

Since the favourite lists were originally intended for consumer use, they had expiration dates and would expire if the account owner did not use their account for a certain period. As a result, lists expired and were lost in some instances.

Meanwhile, in Finland, the Ministry of Education and Culture created a Library of Open Educational Materials, which was integrated into Finna.fi. The Finna Classroom began to showcase these materials as well.

During 2021 and 2022, Finna conducted a usability test focusing on the Finna Classroom. This test identified many small improvements and one major request: teachers wanted the offerings to be showcased more based on their school subjects and were equally interested in material packages and other open educational materials. This finding strongly suggested the need for a technical solution that would allow material packages to be searchable and filterable.

Table 2 summarises the human-centred design and co-creation methods used in Stage 2, the parties responsible for executing methods and those only involved as participants, the main outcomes of the stage, and the artefacts used to construct the timeline for the stage.

Stage 3: Confirming Further Needs and Intentions of the Content-Providing LAM Organisations and Broadening the Concept of Finna.fi (2020)

In 2020, the possibility of curating digital material packages for educational purposes through the new Finna Classroom gathered interest from museums and archives. There were also informal indications that these institutions desired similar opportunities to curate digital material packages for other target groups and purposes.

At the same time, the Finna team was updating the concept of Finna.fi, and this topic needed to be addressed as part of that work. Previously, the concept had been purely a search service; the introduction of the Finna Classroom had already expanded this scope, and there were signs indicating a desire to move even further in this direction.

To gather opinions and wishes from the content-providing LAM organisations related to Finna.fi, the Finna team conducted a questionnaire study. One objective of this study was to determine how widespread the interest was in curating material packages for different target groups. According to the questionnaire results, almost half the responding organisations were interested in curating education-related material packages. Four or five target user groups emerged from the data (depending on whether hobbyists and entertainment seekers are counted as one or two groups): 1) elementary and high school students, 2) higher education students, 3) researchers, and 4) hobbyists and self-learners. Additionally, 40% of the free-text respondents expressed a desire to create material packages for lighter purposes such as entertainment.

The work related to the Finna Classroom had already provided insights into the desire to curate materials for elementary and high school education. The questionnaire did not provide sufficient information for the other groups, necessitating deeper dialogue between the Finna team and the content-providing organisations. Finna arranged two open co-creation workshops with Finna organisations to clarify what curating would entail for higher education and researchers, as well as for hobbyists, self-learners, and entertainment purposes.

This information was processed as part of the Finna.fi concept renewal work. In the updated concept outlines, Finna.fi will feature content areas with curated materials for all three main target groups: education (the Finna Classroom), researchers (including students seeking topics for master’s theses), and hobbyists and free-time users. During the concept renewal work, the Finna team recognised the need for a fourth content page. The number of Finnish digital open-access research publications was growing on Finna.fi, and the new concept needed to highlight these more prominently. The idea of a content page promoting such materials to the general public seemed logical. These content areas would be developed gradually, eventually providing logical starting points for new users from the largest target groups of Finna.fi.

Additionally, the workshops revealed that organisations wished for better tools to enable more professional content management. Specifically, organisations desired tools in which material packages did not expire accidentally, the creation of language versions was less cumbersome, and material packages were findable through the Finna search index alongside other materials. Furthermore, organisations wanted tools that would allow the use of the same materials across multiple Finna-based search sites. There was also a strong desire for features that would enable crowdsourcing activities.

Table 3 summarises the human-centred design and co-creation methods used in Stage 3, the parties responsible for executing methods and those only involved as participants, the main outcomes of the stage, and the artefacts used to construct the timeline for the stage.

Stage 4: Committing Resources to Develop and Run Renewed Finna.fi (2021–2024)

The revised concept for Finna.fi, in addition to the Finna Classroom, outlined three other content areas to be developed over time. The idea of promoting research publications to the general public appeared to be the most achievable one. The minimum viable solution for this type of content did not require creating material packages per se; rather, it involved promoting interesting materials visibly and, thereby, guiding users to discover them. Consequently, a page and processes for organisations to submit proposals for highlighting content on this page were established in 2021 using existing tools.

Simultaneously, operational learnings were gathered from the Finna Classroom-related work. It became evident that if the Finna team were to take the next steps and create the possibility to curate material packages for other target groups, and if the concept succeeded, a bottleneck in Finna’s processes would become a serious problem.

The year 2021 was pivotal as Finna had to decide whether to really commit to the concept. Finna needed better tools to advance the updated concept. Moreover, by this time, Finna had accumulated data supporting the decision. The success of the Finna Classroom demonstrated that our organisations were interested in providing these types of curated material packages, and the positive response from teachers indicated that the concept was viable and had the potential for further growth. Finna had both quantitative and qualitative data showing that content provider organisations had a strong interest in curating material packages for other purposes as well. Moreover, Finna had a clear roadmap for gradually broadening the inclusion of this type of content on Finna.fi in a way that would consistently support the concept and success of Finna.fi.

Technical experts also brainstormed possible solutions. Drupal, an open-source content management tool, appeared to be adaptable to our purposes without the need to build everything from scratch, although it still required a significant amount of development on Finna’s part.

At this point, Finna’s management felt confident enough to proceed and plan the work for the following year. The actual development began at the end of 2022 and continued over 2023. As part of the development, the tool was usability tested with pilot organisations. Originally, the plan was to have the first version of the tool ready by the end of 2023. Consequently, the Finna team announced that no new packages would be accepted into the Finna Classroom during 2023 until the new tool was operational. The existing packages were converted into the new format around the end of the year, but the tool was only ready for organisations to create new packages in May 2024. Moreover, the Finna Classroom page designs were renewed during spring 2024 to better utilise new features from material packages created with the new tool, and the new designs were usability tested with teachers. The renewed Finna Classroom was published in May 2024.

Towards the end of 2023, an opportunity arose to redirect a short-term piece of funding originally granted for another purpose to a new purpose, with the limitation that it should serve researchers and support scientific endeavours. The Finna team utilised the funding for broadening the purpose of the new tool to create material packages for researchers and master’s students working on their theses and developing a new content area for this type of content.

Table 4 summarises the human-centred design and co-creation methods used in Stage 4, the parties responsible for executing methods and those only involved as participants, the main outcomes of the stage, and the artefacts used to construct the timeline for the stage.

Discussion

In the previous section, we described the progression of the case between the years 2018 and 2024. In this section, we reflect on the case through the question, ‘How did user-centred design and co-creation methods guide and facilitate collaboration in the national service and material provider network?’ The case is a success story, but this success was not self-evident. It required systematic effort, and without such dedicated work, the project could have stalled at numerous points.

Human-Centred Design Practises Ensured That the Intended Public Value Realised and End Users Utilised the Service

The original concept of Finna.fi, designed primarily as a straightforward search service for LAM materials, also aimed to target teachers. However, the intended value for teachers was not realised because the service was not sufficiently user-friendly for new users. Initial user research, which informed the conceptualisation and periodic usability testing of the service, contributed to refining the concept to a point where teachers began to use the service. The involvement of citizens was beneficial, as suggested by several scholars (Osborne & Strokosch, 2013; Osborne et al., 2013; Radnor et al., 2014).

User Research Refined the Scope to a Solvable Size Within the Limit of Finna Services

The management at the NLF might have initially perceived the task of enabling digital curation as a broad challenge within the LAM sector. They might have concluded that it was beyond Finna’s scope of responsibility to address this issue, suggesting, instead, that the initiative should come from content owners. Drawing on Adner’s (2017) insights, the problem area was such that the existing alignments within the Finna ecosystem did not encompass it. It was unclear who should assume the leadership role, and the role itself appeared potentially burdensome.

While the general problem was, indeed, a broader challenge, initial user research enabled Finna to narrow the problem scope. This refinement transformed it from a large-scale issue within the LAM sector to a specific problem that could be addressed within the context of Finna.fi. This clarification allowed NLF, as the platform owner, to recognise the problem as part of the existing ecosystem and accept the leadership role, with other participants following suit. Using Adner’s (2017) terminology, this alignment of role expectations was crucial for addressing this particular problem.

The research results also allowed the Finna team to direct the co-creation workshop involving organisations towards solving this specific, narrower problem within Finna.fi, rather than attempting to tackle the larger challenge within the LAM sector. This focus enabled the initial proposal for a minimum viable solution to address this specific issue, making the solution less technically demanding and, thus, requiring less development effort.

In the co-creation workshop, a sufficient number of organisations confirmed that they would be willing to commit to producing material packages for schools if Finna provided the necessary tools and a platform for publication. The workshop helped the Finna team to leverage the organisations’ power for the concept proposal.

This approach aligns with the ideas proposed by Virtanen and Stenvall (2014), who have suggested that involving a network of organisations in innovation work is beneficial when producing services in networked environments. In line with Adner’s (2017) terminology, once more, the process aligned value expectations; clarified NLF’s role; and confirmed that organisations would be willing to participate; even if only this specific problem was addressed.

With a sufficiently narrow scope, adequately light proposed minimum solution, sufficient backing for the proposal, and clear role expectations, it was possible to secure permission for the pilot within NLF.

Co-operational Pilot Produced Objects for Communication

Having a pilot project significantly enhanced communication on multiple levels. First, it functioned traditionally within design processes, producing boundary objects for design purposes and aiding in the development of final designs for both the UI and related processes.

Boundary objects are sets of arrangements that are simultaneously material and processual, residing between communities of practice. By collaborating on these objects, communities develop a shared understanding (Star, 2010).

In digital service production, these objects typically are, for instance, UI wireframes. In our case, the UI design produced wireframes that enabled the pilot content producers and the participating teacher to understand the concept idea. The pilot content, in turn, helped to mediate the perspectives of the content provider organisations. The work with pilot material packages facilitated meaningful cooperation in honing the designs. Without real material package data, completing the UI designs would not have been feasible. However, it was convenient to iterate package designs with only a handful of organisations. The involvement of pilot organisations in producing pilot content facilitated efficient communication between designers and content producers. This involvement allowed the Finna team to determine the necessary instructions for organisations with a reasonable number of participants.

Second, the published pilot site and its content served as a communication object in itself, slowly turning from a boundary item to an infrastructure. It enabled the usability testing of the UI concept with end users and further iteration of designs. Moreover, it clarified the expectations for organisations wishing to create educational material packages. This clarity generated a steady and growing interest in producing such packages. Furthermore, it enabled organisations requiring additional funding to apply for it. Many organisations, for instance, began including the intention to create a material package for Finna Classroom in their applications for digitisation funding applications. According to Adner’s (2017) theory, the pilot helped to communicate both role expectations (what organisations need to do to participate) and value expectations.

Third, Finna Classroom concretely demonstrated the capabilities of the current tools within the Finna ecosystem. This clarity made it easier for organisations to realise that similar projects might be possible for other target users and articulate their wishes for the Finna ecosystem in more detail. Without this development, discussions would likely have remained at a more general level, where these requirements would have been considered as broad needs within the LAM sector. If the discussion had remained at such a general level, the NLF might not have acknowledged the problem to be solved within Finna ecosystem nor accepted the leadership role. Using Adner’s (2017) notion, discussion would have stayed in an area where the role expectations of the existing ecosystem do not apply.

Running Minimum Viable Solution Produced Concrete Customer Data

Implementing the minimum viable solution yielded concrete data on multiple levels, despite it not being the optimal solution. The experience gained from operating the Finna Classroom provided a clear understanding of the tools required to further enable curation.

Additionally, the data indicated that the chosen conceptual solution was correct, even though the tools were not yet optimal. Organisations expressed interest in producing more material packages, and teachers appreciated the Finna Classroom. Furthermore, the data showed that these packages were being utilised.

Essentially, the MVP generated data identifying the next most important issues to address, which aligned with Agile development principles (Beyer et al., 2004). This data was crucial in forming decisions on how to proceed.

Customer Research Provided Facts and Rational for the Updated Finna.fi Concept Proposal

The customer research, including the questionnaire and workshops with content provider organisations, yielded data that became the driving force behind the updated Finna.fi concept proposal. Based on these results, it was straightforward to propose a new direction for Finna.fi to the steering group of Finna Services, making it easier for the steering group to approve the proposal.

This process once again validated Virtanen and Stenvall’s (2014) assertion about the benefits of involving the network of organisations in innovation work. Moreover, when compared to Adner’s (2017) insights, it is evident that, as in the case of the initial user research and co-creation with organisations, this involvement helped to clarify expectations regarding roles and value expectations. Without this clarification, decision-making would have been considerably more challenging.

Human-Centred Design and Co-Creation Activities Delivered Data for a Supplemental Funding Application

A robust long-term concept supported by data enabled the creation of a compelling funding application when an opportunity arose at short notice. The limited time available for preparing the application would have made it nearly impossible without a pre-existing, well-developed concept.

Although following may seem self-evident, when considered in the context of Adner’s (2017) concept of ecosystems as structures and its implications, it suggests that for challenging problems not covered by an existing ecosystem, user research and co-creation with key ecosystem stakeholders can help develop strong, fundable concepts. However, parties must allocate time for this preparatory work in advance.

Reliability, Limitations, and Future Work

The documentation of the case was not planned in advance but was undertaken retrospectively. The artefacts create a timeline illustrating the various phases of the work and the user-centred design and co-creation methods employed. However, they do not provide insights into the thoughts of the individuals involved in the case. The author was engaged with Finna Services during the case, working with the case more closely during the conceptual phases and less so during the actual website and tool development. The author’s familiarity with the case is beneficial in terms of her deep understanding of the artefacts and their implications, but it may have also influenced the objective interpretation of the work.

The case has been described at a general level, and the outcomes have been compared to Adner’s (2017) concept of an ecosystem as a structure for ecosystem strategy. While the author has highlighted the most obvious implications per working phase, a systematic reflection on the specific roles each method played in the work is lacking. The study suggests that human-centred and co-creation activities have a dual role in the processes. In addition to their function as design activities, their importance should also be considered from an ecosystem alignment guidance perspective. A more systematic reflection on the methods used, involving a broader group of people who participated in the case, will be valuable. Furthermore, it will be interesting to conduct similar reflections on other cases within the Finna ecosystem, as well as in other ecosystems.

Conclusion

In this paper, we described how Finna Services has been fostering national collaboration by using human-centred design and co-creation methods to enable the curation of material packages for schools. We also explored how, at the same time, Finna Services has started to solve one of the nationally shared overarching desires to have curation tools for cultural heritage materials. The case detailed the project’s progression from 2018 to 2024 and outlined its stages, the human-centred design and co-creation methods employed, and insights gained from user research studies and workshops with various organisations. We addressed the question, ‘How did user-centred design and co-creation methods guide and facilitate collaboration in the national service and material provider network?’

The case demonstrated how human-centred design and co-creation methods can serve as strategic actions. These methods helped align role expectations and value expectations within the ecosystem, particularly in challenging scenarios. This finding aligns with Adner’s (2017) assertion on the importance of planning such activities as part of an ecosystem strategy, although practical guidance on specific activities has been lacking until now. For the question we raised, the key findings were as follows:

• Human-centred design practises ensured that the intended public value was realised and end users utilised the service.
• User research refined the scope to a solvable size within the limits of Finna Services.
• The co-operational pilot produced objects for communication.
• Running the minimum viable solution produced concrete customer data.
• Customer research provided the facts and rationale for the updated Finna.fi concept proposal.
• Human-centred design and co-creation activities delivered data for a supplemental funding application.

The case also described insights from user research and workshops that indicated a significant need in Finland, particularly in the educational context, for ready-made cultural heritage material packages. These packages facilitated the integration of complementary materials into school curricula. Additionally, Finnish cultural heritage organisations showed a strong willingness to provide curated material packages for various target groups through a national service, provided the necessary tools were available. On a practical level, regarding the topic of including end users and organisations in the design process, this case provided a good example of applying methods in a LAM digital service development project. The findings suggest that ecosystem leader organisations should focus on utilising user-centred design and co-creation methods. Organisations will benefit from recognising their potential as powerful tools for guiding digital ecosystems forward.

References

Abstract

This paper describes the case of how Finna Services, a Finnish national search service for library and cultural heritage materials, has improved the approachability of cultural heritage materials by enabling the production of curated material packages for education purposes. First, the case addresses the recognised needs of teachers for material packages that align with the curriculum and the desires of Finnish cultural heritage organisations to provide them. Second, the case explores the question: ‘How did user-centred design and co-creation methods guide and facilitate collaboration in the national service and material provider network?’ The case demonstrates how some design and co-creation methods serve an additional function as activities that help the organisations clarify roles and value expectations within the ecosystem, thereby successfully realigning the ecosystem to take on the responsibilities needed for the implementation of the new service.

Keywords

Collaboration; Human-centred design; Co-creation; Finna; National LAM infrastructure; Software ecosystems; Ecosystem alignment