Table 3 Relevance of principles to Involvement Mentor role

1. Clearly defined boundaries

Facilitated thinking about service design by highlighting differences between (a) a mentor-in-training as someone who might work with the IIM group, versus (b) a fully trained mentor working independently of the IIM group

2. Proportional equivalence between benefits and costs

Enabled a consideration of how the mentor role might vary regarding payment and reward

3.Collective-choice arrangements

Not seen as relevant given the IIM group felt they already made their own rules and decisions

4. Collective endeavours are inherently vulnerable to ‘free-riding’ and active exploitation

Facilitated thinking about the need for the IIM group to retain a degree of control over the co-designed services, to avoid external groups or individuals realising benefits without contributing to the wider project

5. Graduated sanctions

Enabled the IIM group to think about how they would respond to scenarios where, for example, a mentor was not performing their role in the anticipated way or how sanctions would be applied if a mentor was employed by another organisation

6. Conflict resolution mechanisms

Enabled a discussion of what might happen if conflict arose between Shaping Our Lives and an organisation hosting a mentor

7. Minimal recognition of rights to organize

Raised questions of self-governance, the external constraints that the co-designed services would operate within, and the need for the IIM group and Shaping Our Lives to be able to determine the nature of their relationships with other organisations (including whether a contractual approach was feasible or desirable)

8. For groups that are part of larger social systems, there must be appropriate coordination among relevant groups

Relevant to IIM group and Shaping Our Lives as they were attempting to co-ordinate activities with other groups and organisations. Meaning of ‘every sphere of activity has an optimal scale’ was challenging to apply to the IIM group’s work