Studio  1  Debrief:  Expanding  Mission-­‐Driven  Capacity  

 A  Simplified  Version  of  Studio  1’s  Experience  in  Birmingham  

   Several  Quotes  from  Opening  Presentation:    “Distribute  skills  in  a  way  that  local  communities  can  LATCH  on  to…”  

–  Charlie  Cannon’s  Opening  presentation    Design:     -­‐Inspiration     -­‐Ideation     -­‐Prototyping  

   

Studio  Session  #1:  Friday  Morning    Clients  Speak:    WANT/NEED:  Karen  Rolen,  Community  Fund:  -­‐  make  organization’s  goals  clear  to:     •  partners     •  community     •  Donors  -­‐Fluid  communication  between  all  involved  entities  -­‐Universalize  the  story  of  Community  Fund,    -­‐recognizable,  distinguishable  *Showed  us  material  that  Community  Fund  has  worked  on    Was  astonished  and  surprised  to  hear  that  one  of  our  local  designers  David  Blumberg  had  not  heard  of  Community  Fund.  Re-­‐enforced  her  desire  to  reach  the  community.  The  name  behind  the  great  Railroad  Park.  How  do  we  make  it  too  obvious  to  ignore?    Matt  Leavell,  AL-­‐IE  (Alabama  Innovation  Engine):  How  do  we  make  sure  we  have  impact  to  share  with  our  funders  after  our  two  years?  What  is  our  future,  what  do  we  become?    Overlap  between  both  clients:  

1. Need  for  VOICE  2. Fluid  Communication/  Collaboration  3.  Dialogue  between  community  &  community  leaders  

 How  do  we  fill  the  gap  between  us  and  the  community?  The  gap  between  people  that  can  help  and  those  who  need  help.  

Discovery  Affinity  Map:    Description:  A  wall  of  our  workspace  was  dedicated  to  organizing  our  thoughts  about  the  previous  day’s  immersion  into  Birmingham.  There  were  several  subcategories  (Railroad  Park,  Prize  2  The  Future,  Main  Street  Birmingham,  Jones  Valley  Urban  Farm,  Vulcan  Park,  AL-­‐IE).  Each  studio  member  was  given  a  stack  of  post-­‐it  notes  and  a  Sharpie.  Each  was  given  the  freedom  to  write  words,  phrases  and  draw  pictures  in  order  to  express  their  impressions  of  the  tour  experience.  After  we  collectively  dumped  our  post-­‐it  notes  under  the  categories  we  organized  the  descriptive  notes  into  subcategories,  separating  the  successes  from  the  shortcomings  of  each  place.      Achieved:  o Untangled  confusion  of  tour  absorption    o mind  dump:  visual  clarity  to  the  overload  of  information  being  

acquired  o Identified  the  strengths  and  weaknesses  of  important  community  

groups  o Gave  us  an  idea  of  the  interconnectedness  and  overlaps,  common  

struggle  o Identify  Common  Themes  o Developed  a  common  language  among  the  members  of  our  group  

 This  information  set  us  up  to  begin  the  distillation  process.  Stacy  planned  to  refine  these  new  observations  in  order  to  develop  a  concise  and  accurate  mission  statement  for  our  group.      A  solid  mission  statement  based  on  our  own  observations  would  help  us  get  past  the  confusion  of  our  original  brief  from  the  conference  packet  and  really  focus  on  something  to  accomplish.            

 

Discovery  Affinity  Map  Captured:    

   

 

16.8.4      Description:    Studio  members  were  split  up  into  3  small  groups  to  grapple  with  narrowing  down  our  new  vocabulary  into  a  powerful  mission  statement.  Each  group  of  3-­‐4  was  simultaneously  given  a  very  short  amount  of  time  (about  5  minutes?)  to  develop  a  16  word  statement.  When  time  was  called  everyone  would  walk  around  to  each  other’s  giant  post-­‐it  notes  and  read  the  draft.  After  this  small  reflection  period  the  groups  would  go  back  and  reduce  the  message  to  8  words.  It  was  repeated  once  more  and  the  final  results  were  4  words  each.  

 

 Achieved:  -­‐Honed  the  problem  for  the  problem-­‐solving  segment  of  our  work  (Saturday’s  efforts).    Funneled  this  broad  new  assessment  gained  during  the  affinity  activity  into  something  focused,  specific  and  inspiring,  inspiring  and  empowering  enough  to  be  used  in  our  Pecha  Kucha  presentation.    

 

Pecha  Kucha    The  Pecha  Kucha  as  a  mid-­‐way  report  I  think  was  very  successful.  It  forced  our  group  to  function  as  a  collaborative  unit  under  stress.  A  lot  of  progress  was  made  in  a  very  short  amount  of  time  in  preparation.  Everyone  quickly  found  the  way  they  would  best  contribute  to  a  successful  group.  Some  would  be  presenters,  others  would  work  behind  the  curtain,  some  prepared  the  visual  portion.  The  process  also  allowed  us  to  spend  some  time  reflecting  objectively  on  our  experience  thus  far  so  that  we  could  share  with  the  other  groups  a  story  that  felt  intact.  We  learned  more  about  ourselves  in  this  way.      The  presentation  itself  went  very  well.  The  ability  to  have  something  presentable  after  only  two  days  of  knowing  each  other  was  liberating  and  a  bonding  experience  for  everyone  involved.  Everyone  felt  like  this  was  proper  closure  and  reason  to  celebrate  the  end  of  our  problem-­‐defining  process  and  the  beginning  of  goal-­‐oriented  work.      Because  of  the  Pecha  Kucha  format,  not  only  did  we  now  know  more  about  our  own  group’s  experiences  but  we  could  compare  ourselves  to  other  groups.  At  first  I  thought  maybe  paying  too  much  attention  to  other  groups  would  cause  a  distraction  for  our  own  group.  Instead  our  group  members  responded,  acknowledging  that  our  final  goal  is  much  more  abstract  than  that  of  all  of  the  other  studios.  Our  group  is  dealing  with  something  much  more  complex  and  layered.  With  this  acceptance  we  understood  Saturday  would  be  very  important  and  that  we  were  expected  to  formulate  a  concrete  prototype.      

 (Entire  Pecha  Kucha  attached  to  email)    

Saturday:  Morning  Session    A  second  mind  dumping/  ideation  was  performed.  Our  ideating  thought  was  focused  towards  a  tangible  goal.  Therefore,  put  into  consideration  were  things  such  as:       -­‐Brand     -­‐Timing     -­‐Feasibility     -­‐Capacity     -­‐Gaps     -­‐Dependency    How  would  these  ideas  be  useful  to  our  clients??  We  put  lots  of  thought  into  yesterday’s  work  and  what  kind  of  overlapping  assets  of  different  local  organizations  could  benefit  in  our  creation.      We  came  up  with  three  metaphorical  topics  based  on  a  conversation  we  had  with  our  clients  that  guided  everything  from  the  completion  of  ideation  and  our  eventual  concepts.      THE  DINNER  TABLE:    WHERE  INDIVIDUAL  PROBLEMS  ARE  IDENITFIED    THE  FEAST:  WHERE  COMMUNAL  PROBLEMS  ARE  SHARED    THE  BULLETIN  BOARD:  WHERE  COMMUNAL  PROBLEMS  CAN  BE  CATALOGUED,  DOCUMENTED,  ACCESSED    

Saturday:  Afternoon  Session    The  first  thing  to  say  about  the  afternoon  session  is  that  it  was  entirely  dedicated  to  prototyping  and  finding  some  sort  of  tangible  solution.  Stacy  posted  a  large  post-­‐it  sheet  that  said:      

     

 Valuable  Client  Conversation:    As  a  group  we  helped  the  clients  realize  that  one  major  issue  in  being  a  non-­‐profit  organization  and  working  for  the  community  is  the  constant  struggle  to  work  for  funders  and  the  funded  at  the  same  time.  Often  times  an  organization  devotes  all  of  its  capacity  to  getting  funding  and  doesn’t  interact  enough  with  the  community.  On  top  of  that  funders  want  to  know  about  the  successes  of  the  projects  they’ve  funded.  Both  Karen  and  Matt  felt  that  it  is  very  difficult  and  fruitless  to  collect  quantitative  data  that  can  be  presented  as  evidence  of  progress  to  stakeholders.  They  feel  there  needs  to  be  a  better  way  to  capture,  document,  catalogue  and  internalize  the  things  they  are  hearing  from  the  community  and  the  way  the  stakeholders  are  hearing  about  the  projects  that  depend  on  them  for  funding.  Maybe  the  community  can  help  us  gain  information  and  create  a  knowledge  base  we  can  tap  into.    Our  methodology  we  developed  captures  the  passion  of  the  community  in  a  way  that  it  will  organically  feed  itself  as  the  process  can  be  repeated  again  and  again  in  different  projects,  and  hopefully  gaining  a  more  synchronized  effort  in  Birmingham.      

 

 THE  3  KEYS:    

1. Bulletin  Board:  (metaphorically  a  bulletin  board,  a  place  for  community  members  to  post  their  wishes  for  improving  their  own  communities)  

2. Knowledge  Base:  a  shared  and  communal  database.  It  will  be  where  everything  that  is  posted  on  the  bulletin  board  can  be  documented  and  possibly  championed  by  an  organization.  A  place  for  information,  pictures,  statistics,  funding  numbers,  partnerships  etc.  to  be  collected.  To  be  accessed  so  organizations  can  more  easily  collaborate  and  position  themselves  strategically.  It  will  also  be  a  way  to  report  back  to  stakeholders  about  what  is  going  on  in  the  community.    

 *For  Matt  Leavell  and  the  AL-­‐IE  it  can  be  a  great  way  to  delegate  the  responsibility  of  managing  and  maintaining  the  intake  of  community  requests  and  the  projects  and  co-­‐operations  that  come  out  of  the  knowledge  base.  In  this  way  Matt  can  strategically  position  his  own  team  becoming  more  of  a  facilitator  and  curator  than  a  manager.      For  Karen  and  the  Community  Fund  such  a  knowledge  base  is  a  place  she  could  tap  into  in  order  to  get  a  holistic  view  of  what  is  being  done  and  what  could  still  be  done  with  or  without  the  help  of  other  organizations.      

3.  Broadcast:  We  had  already  gone  through  the  process  of  listening  to  the  community  and  developing  ways  to  approach  the  problems/opportunities.  Now  the  community  needs  to  hear  about  what  is  being  done  so  that  they  can  be  included  and  find  inspiration  through  the  success  of  current  projects.  We  hope  that  community  members  will  be  empowered  to  start  their  own  projects  and  organically  replenish  the  cycle  of  Listen,  Capture,  Act.  

     

 Some  Random  Thoughts    A  way  to  guide  and  usher  creative  design,  creative  want,  breed  opportunities.  BUT  NOT  TAKE  TOO  MUCH  CONTROL!  Facilitate,  convene,  but  not  micro-­‐manage  and  maintain.  Put  the  AL-­‐IE  in  a  position  where  it  can  collect  and  catalogue  the  useful  progress  (Qualitative  and  Quantitative  data)  in  order  to  document  proof  of  success.    

-­‐-­‐    Managing  and  maintaining  a  project  that  is  meant  for  the  community  is  not  only  stretching  the  capabilities,  reach  and  capacity  of  AL-­‐IE,  it  is  also  taking  outside  of  the  community.  Our  job  is  to  plant  something  with  firm  roots  and  allow  it  the  space  and  nutrients  to  grow.    

-­‐-­‐    Is  AL-­‐IE  a  tool  itself  to  be  loaned  out?  OR  does  AL-­‐IE  create  useful  tools  to  be  utilized  by  communities/organizations?                  

 Conclusive  Decision:    We  are  here  using  design  methods  to  brainstorm  new  solutions  to  existing  problems.  What  we  can  leave  is  a  new  methodology  that  the  community  will  eventually  be  able  to  take  ownership  of  (solving  old  problems)  and  become  influential  participants.      (Photo  Below)      

       

 Towards  the  end  of  our  final  day  Stacy  approached  me  and  we  began  to  think  of  ways  to  develop  a  visual  representation  of  our  entire  process.  It  will  attempt  to  tie  together  the  passing  of  time  over  our  three  days  of  work  and  the  designer’s  working  progress.  We  have  some  very  early  and  rough  sketches  that  we  hope  to  continue  work  on  and  use  as  a  way  to  keep  the  studio  group  involved  and  connected.  We  hope  the  end  result  will  be  something  used  as  an  educational  tool  and  a  visual  aid  to  group  members  who  would  like  to  report  and  share  their  experience  in  Birmingham  and  a  way  of  spreading  word  about  the  opportunity  to  design  for  good.          

   

     

Stacy  Reinhardt’s  Facilitating  Commentary:  

1. Discovery Affinity Map Purpose & Goals This purpose of this exercise was to collectively assess the information we gathered during immersion (client challenges and site-specific organizational struggles). The goal was to synthesize that experience in to high-level learnings. Desired Outcome This type of activity is intended to provide the team with a common level of understanding within the problem space and helped identify the underlying themes of issues we were presented with. Unexpected Outcome Informally it provided a forum for team building using an activity that required each individual be participating and engaged. Additional Commentary Our particular project brief required our team to deeply consider multiple dimensions of a broad problem. This exercise allowed us to look at the problem in context of the of the places and people we encountered to help identify common threads. Timing: Ideally less time is spent on this activity, but I felt it was necessary given our broad problem. 2. 16-8-4 Purpose & Goals The purpose was to accelerate the process of defining a concise problem statement. The goal of this was to set our focus for exploring potential solutions. Desired Outcome Create consensus, clarity and ownership of the problem. Unexpected Outcome Excitement combined with an optimistic sense of progress gave the team confidence and momentum to move forward. Additional Commentary Loved it. First time I ever used this activity and thought it very appropriate for both clients and creatives to actively engage. Timing: Timing was perfect. 3. Progress Checkin PechaKucha (the stresses/reliefs, what it helped achieve) Purpose & Goals The purpose was to give visibility into our progress by communicating the discovery process and problem/mission statement within the constraints of a PechaKutcha. The goal of the PetchaKutcha is to work within the constraints to

focus on key areas as talking points. Desired Outcome Allow team members to share with other participating teams our process and formalize our own agenda. Unexpected Outcome While our presenters lacked some of the charisma of the other teams, it gave the participating presenters a chance to embellish the story in their desired style. Additional Commentary I will set constraints next time, appoint a deck builder early on and dictate the tool be something that can be easily shared (aka Keynote). Timing: Appointing someone early on and creating a framework for the presentation would have allowed us to be more efficient with our time. 4. Freeform Ideation Purpose & Goals The purpose is to explore solutions that meet the criteria of our defined problem statement. The goal to to generate a breadth of ideas that can then be prioritized for further refinement. Desired Outcome Create viable solutions that address the core of our problem statement. Unexpected Outcome I did not expect to have a heavy role in lead and contributing to the actual ideas themselves. The team needed some kickstarting by just simple throwing stuff out there and encouraging everyone to draw pictures to visualize their ideas. Additional Commentary I would have ideally had a much larger amount of time dedicated to the ideation, and used some other lateral thinking exercised (posters) to push the limits of this ideation. Timing: Timing was perfect for this, but a desire for other ideation methods was desired. 5. Prioritization & Development of Key Concepts Purpose & Goals The purpose was to identify the concepts that were most viable, desirable and had the most impact in the problem space defined. The goal was also to take these key concepts and develop them in to more fully articulated ideas that that looked various aspects of the solutions/concepts. This involved a definition of Who is this relevant for (audience), What is the essential elements of the idea, When (how does this change over time), Where (embodiments of the idea such as web, physical location, service, etc.), Why (how does this solve the problem and support the goals of the clients) and How it will be realized (next steps, etc.). Desired Outcome

Identify and create the most viable solutions that address the core of our problem statement. Splitting into smaller teams allowed multiple concepts to be further developed simultaneously and each member could invest in their concept of choice. Unexpected Outcome The teams were not focusing on further development of the concepts themselves, but a framework helped them structure the activity (WWWWH?). This framework brought forth an actionable process that began to reveal an overarching theme that existed within the conceptual directions that were being explored. Additional Commentary More time to define the experience from a user or stakeholder's perspective would have been added color that would have brought our ideas in to a more tangible form. Timing: Prioritization was fine on timing, but more time to develop key concepts would have been nice. 6. Final Presentation Purpose & Goals Express the key user values of the concept that was demonstrated through storytelling. Present key concepts in a envision how these can be realized in a creative, but digestible format. Desired Outcome Create an artifact that contained enough direction for the client to move forward with. Unexpected Outcome Not enough time to pack in enough information for the client to move forward with. Additional Commentary Same challenges and things I would do differently as noted on the PetchaKutch. (appoint a deck builder, use a common tool, etc.) Timing: Same comment from presentation on day 2.

 

     Valuable  Assessment  from  Studio  1  member    Philip  Hawthorne:    Alabama Design Summit Studio One Methodology Facilitate

Connect

Empower

Change

On day 2 of the design thinking process, Studio One team members were looking for a structure that tied the common elements of each of the 3 major project proposals into an execution/action plan outline – something that would give the clients a framework around which to begin assessing project feasibility beyond the high concept mission statement we had finally resolved at the end of day one. The key discovery coming out of the team discussions was that the “continuous dialogue” concept was not broad enough to include the notion of “action” – that the idea of ongoing

communication did not automatically translate into the concepts of “facilitate” or “change” that had culminated in the closing slide of our initial Pecha Kucha (Kama Sutra) presentation. Doug, Mark, and I (other breakout group provided insights and Karen joined later) - worked as a group to flesh out the “who, what, where, when, why, how” matrix that Stacy had suggested as a framework to build on. Initially the goal was to highlight the distinct elements of the 3 projects (“chalkboard”; “food for thought”; “information bank”) each on a separate line horizontally. As we dug in it became clear that there were action similarities and overlaps between projects, and that more logical horizontal categories could be defined as LISTEN, THINK2 (Catalog & Analyze) and ACT (Speak) – with a continuum of project related activities moving down the matrix from top to bottom – ultimately completing a regenerating cycle of continual engagement; data capture & analysis; coordinated action; community feedback/reinforcement and ongoing process improvement: We used this high-level lifecycle diagram in the final presentation, but in retrospect, felt that it oversimplified the more complex structure we had built, which gives a detailed picture of how each project feeds a part of the cycle - and the different communities, tools and actions that must be engaged at every stage. We did not have time to complete the “when” column, but the sense was that activities could be grouped into short, medium and long term categories, best illustrated in a relational Gantt chart to reinforce the notion that important activities should be executed in parallel for maximum, coordinated forward movement.

     -­‐-­‐  

     Alabama Design Summit Quick process impressions:

• Preparation materials were good balance of background data without preempting necessity for in-person fact finding to establish and build individual team insights.

• Team make-up: o ideally 8 -12 members with a complement of locals (by location or

specialty) to provide background context o mix of design and other disciplines is valuable – builds on common

approaches and broadens team insights, and at the same time positions AIGA as driving catalyst of Design for Good process.

o Inclusion of majority of geographically or technically (as related to client focus) diverse team members for fresh outside view is critical

• Client discovery process should include – where possible – the opportunity to directly engage with clients’ end-customers/users, or at least representatives that mirror major end-user demographics. This will provide team members with a sense of real connection to affected community members and help minimize sense of social tourism. Studio One team members did not meet with anyone of color during the discovery process, even though they make up a disproportionately large segment of our clients’ target community groups.

• Consider whether providing option for teams to work in isolation is benefit or barrier – does beneficial energy of cross-pollination outweigh drawbacks of potentially homogenized concepts and presentations across teams.

• The role of the facilitator is probably more critical than team makeup. However, matching team members to types of clients that might best serve their local chapter environments is valuable process.

• Facilitators should have a common set of training/tools at their disposal – check-ins with their counterparts during the process are a valuable on-site support mechanism.

• Examine the level of influence a facilitator should have on the team – is it to provide a framework and guide the discussion and findings forward, or to impose an additional layer of analysis leading to more overt team direction.

• Pecha Kucha is a very useful mid-point status check for both organizers and participants

• Final presentation could be more structured or formatted – to include setup and conclusion templates or guides – with room for individual team variables or presentation options in the middle. This may help allay the sense of incompleteness by the teams post-presentation, and leave clients with a more defined set of takeaways. A more delineated construct would also free up valuable concept development time otherwise consumed by attempts to develop appropriate presentation models.

• Consider the possibility of adding another half day on day 3 for team wrap-up and feedback with clients. This would be an opportunity to capture and record client testimonials which will be a valuable “marketing tool” in promoting the Design for Good process and to help recruit like-minded clients in other chapter

locations, and to engage clients as evangelists for the process to their colleagues with organizations in other regions.

• Consider providing teams (or maybe best for scribes?) with lightweight/sponsored video technology – enables quick accumulation of visual reference material for team presentations that becomes a resource library for clients to communicate back to their organizations and for future promotion of Design for Good process across media (comes with need/constraints of permissions paperwork).

• More formally describe or explain the expectations of ongoing relationships with clients – at what point/how should team members’ continued engagement beyond the confines of the exercise be translated into paying work opportunities.

 

                             

Notes  From  Scribe  Debrief:    -­‐  Where  do  the  individual  studios  align  with  each  other?  -­‐  Importance  of  infrastructure,  a  driving  vehicle  for  change  -­‐  Organizations  finding  their  niche  and  role  in  comparison  to  other  org’s  in  order  to  develop  a  cohesive  vision  for  Birmingham  -­‐  Give  organizations  a  thing  to  center  themselves  around  -­‐  COHESION  -­‐  Daring,  Revolutionary  in  creativity  -­‐  How  do  we  record  qualitative  data  so  that  stakeholders  are  pleased/  enticed?  -­‐  Can  the  way  we  document  qualitative  data  be  a  part  of  re-­‐branding  the  Birmingham  effort?  -­‐  Divisional  conflict  between  clients  learning  and  professionals  (AIGA)  learning  -­‐  Get  graphic  designers  to  step  out  of  their  shell,  do  work  that  needs  to  be  done,  not  just  work  that  is  chosen  to  be  done                                  

 Please  also  see  all  documents  corresponding  to  Studio  Group  #1  attached  to  the  email:    1. Pecha  Kucha    2. Final  Group  Presentation  

                   Collected  and  Organized  by    ZEV  POWELL    Email:  zev.powell@wustl.edu  Cell:  612.708.6180