Created by Shannon Lutz
April 26, 2018
How do we become designers? Let me take you on a journey on how I went from a novice designer to an experienced designer in a matter of fourteen weeks. Before I began my Learning Tech through Design course at Michigan State University (MSU), I had no idea what design thinking was, nor did I know how to use it functionally in my professional career. This class challenged me to determine a problem of practice that would allow me to go through the five stages of the design process-empathy, define, ideate, prototype, and testing.
Creative confidence is not one of my greatest strengths. I often get anxious just thinking about creativity, but am aware that through effort and experience, this confidence is something that I can build on and strengthen. As I brainstormed a problem that would not only be beneficial to the class assignment but also something that was prevalent in my career as a Program Training Assistant at MSU, I made the decision that I needed to select a problem that would allow me to use my critical thinking skills and tap into my own creativity. Around the same time that I was tasked with determining a problem, my supervisor invited me to assist with developing a networking activity for an upcoming forum for International Research Administrators on campus. In the past, participants left right before the networking portion of the forum, yet expressed their need for it. Was this assignment perfect timing? I think so! So there it was…my problem of practice.
The first stage in the design process is to empathize with your audience. I must emerge myself into the participants’ world, understand their perspective of the networking portion, and create a character profile. This research allows me to create awareness, emotionally understand my audience, and internalize their experiences from past forums. I chose to use the framework that was described in A framework for empathy in design: stepping into and out of the user's life which is based on the principle that the designer steps into the life of the user and wanders around their world (Kouprie & Sleeswijk Visser, 2009). Through discovery, immersion, connection, and detachment, I was able to develop a deeper understanding of my audience.
After moving through each phase of the framework, I was able to develop a character profile:
Research administrators responsible for international projects with 1-10 year of experience in research administration. Based on feedback from past surveys, members are not comfortable with talking to each other because they do not know the other administrators. They would prefer a networking activity that would allow them to collaborate to share their own experiences and learn from others, rather than the question and answer networking activities held in the past.
Now that I had a character profile, it was time to redefine my problem by asking questions. “Questions are the engines of intellect that converts curiosity into controlled inquiry” (Berger, 2014). I have provided some of the questions that I asked myself.
Why are these research administrators leaving before this slotted time on the agenda if it is something that they want/need?
How can I develop an activity that would engage the audience to collaborate and make them feel comfortable enough to share their own experiences and learn from other research administrators?
What if we do not label it as “networking” on the agenda? Does this word give them anxiety
Throughout the define stage, the above questioning helped me redefine my problem statement: International Research Administrators need to develop personal relationships with their colleagues so they can feel comfortable with working together and networking at upcoming forums. When the administrators feel comfortable with one another, they will openly share personal experiences and have an effective cross transfer of knowledge in International Research, also known as – “networking”.
My questioning did not end in the define stage, though. As I brainstormed during the ideate stage, I continued to ask questions to help me determine the best solution to the problem. The ideation stage was probably my most favorite stage because this is where I was able to start putting my ideas into action and collaborate with my team. Mind mapping became a way to gain clarity on the problem and develop ideas for exploration. By mind mapping and brainstorming, I created an objective and description for a case study.
Objective:
International Research Administrators need to develop personal relationships with their colleagues so they can feel comfortable with working together. The Global Agreement and Budget case study will allow participants to meet and/or network with other Research Administrators, share personal experiences and/or knowledge, and hear others’ experiences to develop a resolution to a predetermined scenario.
Description:
Kristy Smith (the facilitator) will introduce an activity that will introduce scenarios/topics that may be challenging with global subawards. Participants will then breakout into six groups (average of 10 participants each). Attendees may have already provided enough challenges via the registration email, but if there are not enough, Kristy will start by asking the participants for suggestions of discussion topics. She will also have sample scenarios ready in the event that there are not enough topics to discuss among the groups. Once the topics have been determined, the participants will move into their groups (CGA and OSP representatives in each group) and do a short round table introduction (tables will be labeled 1 thru 6). Shannon will pass out packets that include the agreement and budget. Each group will decide on a leader who will take notes and report out at the end. The CGA and OSP representatives (6 from CGA and 1 or 2 from OSP) will provide their experiences and knowledge as needed. The groups will have 20 minutes to discuss, and once the discussions have taken place, the groups will report back to the audience on their solutions/findings. This activity should take between 45-50 minutes. Following the event, separate questions will be included on the post event survey to gather feedback about the activity and within three weeks of the event, a recap of the discussions with the correct answers will be provided to the participants.
Using the objective and description helped me put my ideas on paper and prepare me for the prototype stage of the design process.
As much as I felt the empathy stage was challenging, the prototype stage put my creative confidence to the test. This stage challenged me more than I thought it would. Prototyping takes the explorations and ideas that came to me during the ideate stage of the design process and helped me create something that can be used in the physical world (Institute of Design at Stanford, n.d.). This posed the question- what is the best way to go about creating a prototype that can be tested for an activity? After much thought, I choose to design a storyboard, floor plan, and sample scenario to incorporate into a case study. I was determined to inspire others with my vision on how the activity should be organized and led.
Here I was, at the testing stage with a case study plan. How do I test a case study? I did not have a physical object to play with and test; no, I had a plan of action. So, how do I test it?
I determined that using a focus group would be the most beneficial to prototype my problem of practice. After receiving the feedback of the focus group, I used the feedback to make some minor changes to the case study; mostly dealing with time allotment. This way of testing my idea was sufficient, and the information gathered at the meeting will prove very helpful as I make final adjustments to the plan and prepare for the event on May 15th.
So, there you have it. I became a designer by using a problem that was presented to me at work and effectively redefining it to create an activity that should provide a solution. Did I mention that I had the forum coordinator change the name of it on the agenda? Instead of “Networking Activity”, it now reads “CGA (Contract and Grant Administration) Case Study”. I presume that this will encourage the participants to stay, and I look forward to hearing their feedback after the forum.
As I continue to move forward in my schooling and career, I plan to continue using design thinking to solve problems and help me create a new and exciting approach to training our staff and research administrators. This type of thinking will prompt me to empathize with my audiences, define my problems at a deeper level, and create something that will provide value to their professional careers. Through the use of questioning, I can continue to innovate the current training program and move our department into 21st century learning. I will no longer be a novice, but more of an experienced designer.
Click on the PDF image below for my Problem of Practice: Final Report
Comments