Reflection – Visualization

Challenge

Re-imagine Library Entranceway.

The entranceway in question has become a dumping ground for litter and  frequent loitering, not only blocking traffic flow but also appearing unkempt &  unprofessional. The entranceway is frequented daily by a diverse cross-section  of stakeholders ranging from staff, students, visitors and guests. It was decided  by management a solution had to be found in somehow re-imagining the  space.

Selection

I chose the Visualization Tool as it provides clarity in depicting the current  problem. It also enables stakeholders to capture, express and communicate  inherent perceptions and other potential options during the Exploration  process. By visually expressing thoughts & ideas, clarity to seemingly abstract  concepts can become made readily accessible and understandable to both  individuals and the group. (Ref: Module 1 - Angela Meyer: Visualization video)

Application

Over a three-day period, comprising of a 30 minute session per day, 7  stakeholders across various age groups, roles and responsibilities were  selected. 3 staff members, 2 of which who work in the library building  adjoining the entranceway, 1 from Library Management along with an  additional 4 members of the student community participated in the design  thinking process.

Session 1 Situated in a relatively small Meeting Room, members of the student  community met on the first day to partake in a casual interview. Due to time  restraints the session was divided into three sections. For the first 10 minutes  participants were given an introduction where they were shown photographs  of the entranceway in its current state along with a set of questions on paper  aimed at getting them to consider the problem. Blank sheets of paper, sticky  notes, pens and coloured pencils were provided. The following questions were

asked: 1 What were your first impressions of the entranceway? 2 Write down  any likes/dislikes you have regarding the entranceway. 3 How do you feel the  entranceway could be improved or changed? Participants were then left to  their own devices expressing their views. This 10 minute window mainly  focused on the first two questions based around the “What is” and “What if”  stage of the design thinking process. The final 10 minutes centred on the third  question allowing the “What if” aspect of the problem be examined. At the end  of the session feedback was gathered.

The following day, Session 2 involved two staff members who were given the  equivalent format, a brief introduction, same set of questions divided into  three 10-minute segments. They expressed their thoughts via materials  provided followed by general discussion. This session provided a staff  perspective of the “What is, What if” side of the problem revealing both similar  and extremely different viewpoints.

On the final day, Session 3, the last official session, data gathered was  displayed on a whiteboard including photographs of the existing entranceway,  sticky notes and loose-leaf paper gathered from previous sessions.  Unfortunately, only 3 members of the initial 4 student body could attend along  with the 2 staff members. The data itself mainly comprised of hand-written  notes but there were a few rudimentary sketches in the mix depicting new  insights.

Having representatives from both student & staff bodies provided an  interesting mix of perspectives. Both parties verbally highlighted their views  reinstating what had already been visually expressed and this sparked some  new considerations based upon concerns and ideas displayed. There was some  healthy disagreement which led to not so much totally abandoning, but  moving to one side particular suggestions deemed too difficult or impractical  to implement at this moment in time. For example, significant structural  changes and costly additional hardware be installed. However, some mutual  insights became clearly apparent especially in relation to the “What is” stage in  the process.  All agreed the entranceway was an eyesore and in desperate  need of change. “Dull” “drab” & “boring” were some of the commonalities  described. While different opinions abounded functionality of the space also  met some mutual understanding.  In the final 10 minutes, participants also had

the option of re-imagining the space using visualization as a means of  expression. This allowed all participants to examine the “What if” and touch on  the “What wows” via an assortment of interiors featuring various educational  institutions, public libraries and retailers displayed for inspiration. Ideas which  met general consensus remained centred on the board with other possibilities  placed nearby. Unfortunately, due to time restraints this concluded our  sessions. Taking collected data from the final session I then made a graphic  featuring shared feedback plus new insights branching off from the main  problem then presented it to management for further exploration.

Insight

Insight gathered during this process revealed how valuable visualization can be  in igniting healthy debate surrounding a problem, harnessing a better  understanding across diverse viewpoints and perspectives, but most  importantly, working collectively and for a common good in tackling a  problem. Information surrounding more ambiguous details also became  apparent. For example: how “heavy” the door felt to open, the shape of the  handle itself, even concerns regarding tiny scuff marks on the wall, seemingly  oblivious to most, were expressed along with numerous customer-centric  suggestions such as providing useful resources, scenting the space via a  diffuser and perhaps play low-level, soothing music, aspects of the initial  challenge that could have easily been over-looked if design thinking had not  been implemented.

Approach

Upon reflection I would choose the Co-creation tool. (Ref: Module 1 - The  Good Kitchen video) Reasons for this include conducting additional workshops  over an increased period (1-2 weeks) including a broader cross-section of  stakeholders; visitors and guests, providing a larger co-creation landscape to  address the problem, increase potential for honest, open debate, thus nurture  new ideas, more specifically, exploring the “What wows and What works”  aspects of design thinking. Improved measurements in the administering and  collection of data would be implemented (Ref: Module 3 – The Idea  Generation Process video) including a well-structured Design Brief & Research

Plan in order to obtain more accurate results. I would also like to suggest  management be more involved in the overall process from start to finish.

