Designing solutions for people requires the right amount of empathy to allow for a deep understanding of the challenges and needs of those for whom we are designing. As soon as the dust settles and we have reached a level of empathy that allows us to “step into the user’s life” as Kouprie & Visser (2009) put it, it is now time to step back out and create meaning from the insights that we gained from being immersed in their life (p. 444). Moving from the empathy phase of a design challenge to the defining phase requires that we choose an appropriate define method. In the Stanford University Institute of Design (2016)  Bootcamp Bootleg and IDEO (2015) Design Kit – Methods, there are many Define Methods to choose from and deciding on one can be a challenge in itself depending on which Empathy Method was used. In my particular case, I used a beginner’s mindset, interviewed participants and then created empathy maps to extract common themes and patterns. From the many Stanford University Institute of Design’s (2016) Define Methods, the first method that I think will be most helpful in my design challenge is the Point-of-View Madlib Method (p. 21).  From IDEO (2015), Define Methods, the second method that will be of use is the How Might We? Method (p. 26).

The Point-of-View Madlid Method can be completed following the empathy map and will be used to enable a better understanding of the user’s perspective on the challenge and help to define a problem statement from what they want to do and how they want to feel.   The How Might We? Method can be utilized after the Point-of-View Madlib method is complete and will allow for the problem statement to be turned into a specific actionable question that incorporates the user’s perspective and gives a launching point into brainstorming for the ideating phase to come.

References

IDEO. (2015). Design Kit – Methods. Retrieved from http://www.designkit.org/methods

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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544820902875033

Stanford University Institute of Design. (2016). Bootcamp Bootleg. Retrieved from http://dschool-old.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/METHODCARDS-v3-slim.pdf