The human-centred needs assessment method selected was what the the Stanford University Institute of Design Bootcamp Bootleg (2016) refers to as the “interview for empathy” (p. 10). This method will allow a deeper understanding of the thoughts, emotions, and motivations of the users, allowing the identification of their needs and the creation of a design that meets those needs (Stanford University Institute of Design, 2016). According to IDEO (2015), “there’s no better way to understand the hopes, desires, and aspirations of those you’re designing for than by talking with them directly” (p. 1), while Kouprie and Visser (2009) also recommend direct contact with users.
The main issue I reflect on for this assignment is that the end product that we create in assignment 2 is very specific, so the whole process needs to be coaxed in that direction. The end product is a digital learning resource that, according to the rubric, must include assessment and student/student and instructor/student interaction. Does this make the process feel very non-authentic for others? Even in our Flipgrid videos, most of us (all of us?) were already talking about our solutions before even having started the process. How can we have an authentic phase of empathy and discovery when we already know where we are going? At best we can tweak the end result to better suit users’ needs.
References
IDEO. (2015). Design Kit – Interview.
Kouprie, M., & Visser, F. S. (2009). A framework for empathy in design: Stepping into and out of the user’s life. Journal of Engineering Design, 20(5), 437-448.
Stanford University Institute of Design. (2016). Bootcamp Bootleg.
Hi Jason,
Thanks for sharing your reflections about how the parameters of Assignment 2 may hinder the authenticity of the design thinking process. I am also interested to see how others feel about this, and would welcome any suggestions for how we might be able to overcome this.