Last week, in class we got to work with a new group in order to come up with an idea for what our class would do for Sauder’s open house on March 1st. We were given some criteria and we were given about two hours to come up with our idea.
Our group functioned well and fast. One of our members had an idea before we even got started. We decided that we would build on her idea. We started by defining what issues we needed to address and then adapting our idea to make sure that each issue was taken care of. Each group member added to the project by bringing up concerns they had with different aspects of our idea. We used the white board to draw out our idea and then we started to add details. We decided that it was necessary to show case what Design Thinking is, as most people do not understand it. We thought we would have four tables with cut outs of the students in our class performing different parts of the innovation process. Together we came up with the steps. We felt it would be nice to have a display that people could walk around and at the same time have a movie going on in the background.
After reading “Innovation as a Learning Process: Embedding Design Thinking” by Beckman and Barry, I found that our group had some characteristics of an innovate group and we also lacked some characteristics. This paper illustrates an example of the innovation process which includes four steps. These steps include: observation, framework, imperatives and solutions. I found it interesting to note the fact that when we decided to do this project and outline the innovation process for others to understand, our four steps were: Define objectives, prototype, feedback, and implementation. We had a similar idea but our idea was based more on the outcome than observing. I believe the actual steps in the innovation process need to be varied based on the project and its goals.
For this week, we also had to read “Design as a Reflective Conversation with the Situation” by Schon. This paper took the approach of outlining the process of design using its own example. Schon also comes up with a generic process shared by various design professions. This process involves the designer making prototypes and finds him or herself struggling to deal with many variables that affect the outcome of his prototype. The designer takes into account these unintended changes to develop a new understanding. The author says the situation “talks back” and the designer must answer to the situation’s back talk. The designer reflects in action on the construction of the problem, the strategies of the action or model which have been implicit in his moves.
After reading these articles and discussing with my group, the design process is very similar in all three situations. My group came up with four steps: Set objectives, prototype, obtain feedback, and implement that all tied together. For example, you could get to step 3: obtain feedback and get such awful feedback that you realise you did not meet the objectives, as a result you have to go back to the beginning and start again. In Beckman and Barry’s paper they came up with their own four steps in the design process: Observation, framework, imperatives and solutions. They believed that understanding the broader context might enable the development of something much more powerful. They spent a lot of time on the observation phase. Once they had this information, they moved to the hardest stage: frame working. It requires taking a lot of data and making sense of that data. It also requires the ability to see patterns to parse the important information from the less important information and to create models that yield insights that can be shared across an innovation team. Once this has been completed, we move into the imperatives stage. This is where we establish the value propositions that must be met by the new concept (a description of the tangible benefits customers will derive from the use of the product or service). This is where the team decides the most important goals that it must accomplish with its innovation and it also involves understanding what is missing for the users of the prospective innovation. The final stage is solutions and it involves choosing the solutions that best meet the imperatives and testing them with potential customers. As for Schon’s article, his outline of the process is a bit more laid back. There are no set steps. He just makes it clear that the designer needs to learn from his prototype and obtain feedback where possible in order to create a better product/ service. Taking into account what we have talked about in class and my three sources, I came up with my own idea of what the design process looks like. (see diagram below)
After doing the readings for this week, I felt like there should be more emphasis put on the beginning part of the process and so I made it into two steps. The problem and goals need to be defined right away but they can change as you move along the process. I think it critical that there is a phase where we observe potential customers and learn what it is they need. Depending on the problem the gathering of data will vary drastically from situation to situation. All of my sources talked about a prototype phase. I like to think of this as a trial and error stage. You come up with potential products/services that meet your objectives and the needs of the client that you established in the learning phase, and then you move to the feedback stage in order to see how your customer reacts to your prototypes. From this you figure out if one of your prototypes in a good candidate or if you need to start the process again. The implementation stage is the final stage and will not result until all the other phases have been completed.