Tool   of   Choice:   Visualization

Challenge

1. The  challenge  I  faced  is  about  organisational  design:  how  to  identify  and  understand  our

target  customers,  define  a  product  model,  then  marrying  the  two  holistically  in  order  to

enable  the  company  to  deliver  against  the  real  needs  of  the  customers  in  the  most

efficient  way  possible,  also  achieving  consensus  between  every  stakeholder  in  the

company?

2. In  addition,  people  involved  in  this  exercise  (a  total  of  10,  plus  myself,  including  C-Suite

members)  came  from  a  variety  of  backgrounds:  one  hand,  this  ensured  a  wide  range  of

different  and  valuable  inputs  but,  at  the  same  time,  implied  that  each  of  them  used  a

slightly  different  language  and  had  in  mind  different  concepts.  This,  in  turn,  implied  that

stakeholders  weren’t  able  to  agree  on  what  the  “ask”  of  the  task  was  really  about  or  what

the  problem  we  were  trying  to  solve  exactly  was.  In  this  context,  I  was  tasked  to  allow

these   stakeholders   -   me   included   -   to   reach   a   positive   conclusion.

Selection

3. The  environment  was  clearly  multidimensional:  the  variety  of  mindsets  involved;  the  fact

that  stakeholders  weren’t  clearly  able  to  articulate  what  the  problem  really  was;  the  huge

amount  of  data  available  (in  the  form  of  technology  components,  financial  analysis,

personas  and  quantitative  analysis  on  customer  behaviours).  All  these  aspects  made  me

believe  that  this  challenge  fit  the  definition  of  “ wicked  problem”  (according  to  the  definition

given  in  week  1,  “Challenges  best-suited  for  Design  Thinking “CBSDT” , 1’31” ),

corroborated  also  by  the  fact  that  it  was  really  hard  to  filter  the  data  available  to  draw  a

clear   cause/effect   relationship   (   compatible   with    CBSDT,   1’58” ).

4. Hence,  I  opted  to  deploy  one  of  the  tools  of  Design  Thinking:  Visualization.  The  rationale

behind  this  choice  was  related  to  the  diverse  mindsets  that  needed  to  a)  have  the  same

view  on  the  problem  in  order  to  b)  reach  consensus.  Visualization,  I  thought,  could  help  to

clarify  the  concepts  and  align  thinking.  Additionally,  another  key  driver  was  the  need  for  a

deep  understanding  of  both  the  people  involved  (to  reach  consensus  between  the

stakeholders)  and  the  customers  (to  best  satisfy  their  needs  through  the  most

appropriate  product  model).  In  particular,  this  driver  seems  to  be  well  aligned  with  what

has  been  discussed  in  the  course  (“ design  thinking  is  appropriate  if  a  deep  understanding

of   the   actual   people   or   users   involved   is   essentia l”    CBSDT,   1’58” ).

Application

5. An  “alignment  session”  was  scheduled  in  order  to  iron  out  all  the  concerns  emerged

between  the  various  stakeholders.  Before  the  session,  I  shared  the  list  of  Products  we

had  and  I  asked  everyone  to  write  on  post-its  who  their  “key  customers”  were.  In  the

session  we  began  by  sticking  the  “key  customers”  post-its  on  a  whiteboard  and,  once  the

exercise  was  completed,  we  found  4  main  clusters  representing  “key  customers”.  Their

needs  (“customer  needs”)  were  also  agreed  during  the  dsicussion.  To  my  surprise,

alignment  was  quick  once  the  patterns  emerged  on  the  whiteboard.  These  “key

customers”  and  their  “customer  needs”,  now  placed  at  the  top  of  the  whiteboard,  became

the   basis   for   the   Product   Model   Strawman.

6. The  next  step  was  to  draw  rectangular  boxes  scattered  across  the  board,  each  box

representing  a  product  we  have  (the  “Product  Model  Strawman”).  Then,  I  asked  the

stakeholders  to  volunteer  to  draw  arrows  in  order  to  connect  Customers  to  Products,  and

then  Products  to  other  Products  that  were  related  to  them.  I  also  asked  stakeholders  (me

included!)  to  write  down  the  outcome  for  each  of  the  Product  on  post-its:  I  then  stuck

Giorgia Piccolo          Design  Thinking  Assignment

them  near  the  most  appropriate  Product  and  we  began  to  test  each  Outcome  against  the

“customer  needs”:  I  allowed  45  minutes  of  discussion  in  order  to  iron  out  any

misunderstanding,  re-crafting  the  outcomes  to  reach  consensus.  The  visualization  of  the

relationships  between  Customers  and  the  various  Products  -  the  Product  Model  -  as  well

as  the  outcomes,  all  clearly  shown  on  the  whiteboard,  generated  a  fruitful  discussion  that

allowed  the  group  to  reach  consensus  really  quickly,  turning  the  meeting  in  a  great

success.

Insight

7. The  insight  I  gained  from  this  experience  was  on  two  levels:  specific  to  the  session  and

more  generic,  applicable  to  any  context.  With  regards  to  the  session,  the  Visualization  of

abstract  concepts  on  a  whiteboard  as  well  as  the  opportunity  for  everyone  to  give  their

input  through  post-its  enabled  a)  the  creation  of  a  common  semantics  that  everyone

agreed  upon  thus  b)  enabling  a  meaningful  discussion.  Furthermore,  active  participation

enabled  everyone  to  buy-in  very  quickly  as  the  work  was  also  considered  “theirs”  and  not

just  “belonging”  to  the  presenter.  I  believe  this  element  of  “shared  learning”  applies  also

on  a  general  level.  Furthermore,  on  a  more  abstract  level,  this  experience  taught  me  that

Visualization  can  be  applied  independently  on  the  background  of  the  people  involved,  the

problem  to  be  addressed  and  that,  in  fact,  it  can  be  a  powerful  tool  to  reach  consensus

as   it  allows/”forces”   people   to   focus   on   “what   is   drawn   on   the   whiteboard”.

Approach

8. In  this  experience,  I  recognised  that  the  most  important  element  is  the  possibility  for

everyone  in  the  room  to  visualise  concepts  via  simple  and  unequivocal  representations.

As  such,  another  option  to  get  to  the  same  conclusion  that  I  considered  was  to  start  from

“outcomes”  rather  than  “products”  so  that  we  had  a  set  of   “rectangular  boxes”

representing  an  “outcome  model”.  This  approach  could  have  allowed  to  a)  better

understand  Customer  needs  and  b)  validate  our  current  list  of  Products,  although

probably   it  could   have   required   more   time   to   complete.

9. Nevertheless,I  decided  to  apply  Visualisation  again  but  using  this  “outcome  first”

approach  in  the  next  step  of  this  work  where  we  wanted  to  drill  down  into  Customers,

defining  a  set  of  lower  level“Sub-Customers”.  I  scheduled  another  “alignment  session”

and,  instead  of  starting  from  a  predetermined  list  of  “sub-Customers”  I  decided  to  ask  the

stakeholders  to  list  what  was,  in  their  view,  the  job  to  be  done,  writing  them  down  into

statements  (“job-to-be-done  statements”)  on  the  whiteboard.  Then,  I  guided  the

discussion  to  cluster  the  ”job-to-be-done  statements”  under  each  of  the  pre-existing

Customers,  mapping  their  interrelations.  Each  set  of  interconnected  “job-to-be-done

statements”  became  a  new  “Sub-Customer”.  This  approach  enabled  us  to  quickly  identify

a  set  of  12  key  Sub-Customers  in  a  third  of  the  time  we  took  to  complete  the  Product

Model   work.

Page  2           Giorgia Piccolo

