Reflection – mind mapping for a new intranet  Design Thinking for Innovation | Assignment | Abdul Thomas

Challenge  I am the manager of online services for a government department. After several years without any  major changes to the intranet, we recently felt it was time for it to be redesigned, reinvigorated and  to become more of an engagement channel for staff. The challenge for us was to create an intranet  that met the needs of staff as well as senior management. In particular, to provide an intranet that  helped people do their job. To achieve this, we knew it was important for the new intranet to be co- designed, something that never happened previously.

To start our ‘what is’ investigation, we carried out a survey of staff to get their feelings about the  intranet. Analysing this data provided some useful insights. What we found was that most people  were generally happy with the intranet, though there were some common themes in the responses:  there were a number of common day-to-day tasks that needed to be made easier, the design was  tired and could be modernised, search could be improved, and the content could be reviewed for  currency.

Selection  While the survey provided some useful data and insights, I felt there was a need to re-affirm the  current reality and, as discussed by Cheryl Flores in the lecture material, ‘establish  criteria for the what-if idea generation phase’. The ideal design tool to use for this purpose was mind  mapping. Mind mapping is a method used to find common themes, patterns and insights from data  collected during the ‘what is’ phase, to help you to generate an idea or innovation that meets the  need of the customer. Mind mapping was important in this project because it allowed us to really  understand what staff wanted from their intranet, and notably what they didn’t want. It also was an  excellent tool to use to encourage engagement and ownership of the new intranet.

Application  In conducting the mind mapping, I organised for 15 participants to join in the session, and ran  several different activities. The participants were representatives from across the department and  were also at all levels, from senior management to more frontline staff.

I carried out five separate activities as part of the mind mapping session. Firstly, while together as a  full group at the beginning, each participant was asked to state what they felt was the main purpose  of the intranet, and these responses were recorded on a whiteboard. As responses were recorded,  there was open discussion from the group. This helped to clearly define the reason for the session  and unified the group with a common aim. Next, I had placed a number of examples of intranet  home pages on the wall around the room. The participants were asked to individually look at each  one, and using sticky notes, identify one thing they liked and one thing they didn’t like about each  example. Each of the notes were grouped together to create common themes. Then the participants  were divided into three groups. Each group was asked to design their ideal intranet using pens and  large sheets of paper provided. This started to bring together the ideas and help us to start defining  the criteria to use when moving to ‘what if’. The last two activities were online-based ones, firstly to  carry out some basic tasks using a rough wireframe my team had developed and secondly to  complete a top task analysis to help identify the most common activities carried out by staff. These  last two activities were carried out individually by the participants.

Insight  Using mind mapping as a tool in the design approach really helped us to be better prepared for the  ‘what if’ and ‘what wows’ phases of the project, which is where we are up to at the moment. It  allowed us to validate some assumptions, exclude some initial ideas and really understand what staff  wanted from the intranet. On a personal level, it helped me to ‘walk in the shoes’ of the staff (i.e.

our users) and appreciate some of their needs and frustrations. It also highlighted to me how critical  the intranet can be to allowing staff to do what they need to do.

Using this mind mapping approach has reiterated to me the power of design thinking in exploring  new possibilities for long-standing challenges. Intranets are not new, and are a source of frustration  in many organisations, but by using a design thinking approach I can see many opportunities to  create something that really works. In the past, the intranet team would have developed something  using their best understanding, which may have been an improvement but not ‘wowed’.

Approach  I have probably used aspects of mind mapping in many projects that I have undertaken before.  Working in the digital space, it is common practice for us to engage the user heavily in the process.  But the process had not been so clearly defined before. There were some practical learnings I had  which I would do differently next time, including the time allowed for the session (I felt a little  rushed—more time would be better), the rooms used and the process followed. I would probably do  the mind mapping a little earlier in the process too, as we had done some wireframing already.


Reflection – mind mapping for a new intranet Design Thinking for Innovation | Assignment | Abdul Thomas Challenge I am the manager of online services for a government department . After several years without any major changes to the intranet , we recently felt it was time for it to be redesigned , reinvigorated and to become more of an engagement channel for staff . The challenge for us was to create an intranet that met the needs of staff as well as senior management . In particular , to provide an intranet that helped people do their job . To achieve this , we knew it was important for the new intranet to be co- designed , something that never happened previously . To start our ‘ what is ’ investigation , we carried out a survey of staff to get their feelings about the intranet . Analysing this data provided some useful insights . What we found was that most people were generally happy with the intranet , though there were some common themes in the responses : there were a number of common day - to - day tasks that needed to be made easier , the design was tired and could be modernised , search could be improved , and the content could be reviewed for currency . Selection While the survey provided some useful data and insights , I felt there was a need to re - affirm the current reality and , as discussed by Cheryl Flores in the lecture material , ‘ establish criteria for the what - if idea generation phase ’ . The ideal design tool to use for this purpose was mind mapping . Mind mapping is a method used to find common themes , patterns and insights from data collected during the ‘ what is ’ phase , to help you to generate an idea or innovation that meets the need of the customer . Mind mapping was important in this project because it allowed us to really understand what staff wanted from their intranet , and notably what they did n’t want . It also was an excellent tool to use to encourage engagement and ownership of the new intranet . Application In conducting the mind mapping , I organised for 15 participants to join in the session , and ran several different activities . The participants were representatives from across the department and were also at all levels , from senior management to more frontline staff . I carried out five separate activities as part of the mind mapping session . Firstly , while together as a full group at the beginning , each participant was asked to state what they felt was the main purpose of the intranet , and these responses were recorded on a whiteboard . As responses were recorded , there was open discussion from the group . This helped to clearly define the reason for the session and unified the group with a common aim . Next , I had placed a number of examples of intranet home pages on the wall around the room . The participants were asked to individually look at each one , and using sticky notes , identify one thing they liked and one thing they did n’t like about each example . Each of the notes were grouped together to create common themes . Then the participants were divided into three groups . Each group was asked to design their ideal intranet using pens and large sheets of paper provided . This started to bring together the ideas and help us to start defining the criteria to use when moving to ‘ what if ’ . The last two activities were online - based ones , firstly to carry out some basic tasks using a rough wireframe my team had developed and secondly to complete a top task analysis to help identify the most common activities carried out by staff . These last two activities were carried out individually by the participants . Insight Using mind mapping as a tool in the design approach really helped us to be better prepared for the ‘ what if ’ and ‘ what wows ’ phases of the project , which is where we are up to at the moment . It allowed us to validate some assumptions , exclude some initial ideas and really understand what staff wanted from the intranet . On a personal level , it helped me to ‘ walk in the shoes ’ of the staff ( i.e. our users ) and appreciate some of their needs and frustrations . It also highlighted to me how critical the intranet can be to allowing staff to do what they need to do . Using this mind mapping approach has reiterated to me the power of design thinking in exploring new possibilities for long - standing challenges . Intranets are not new , and are a source of frustration in many organisations , but by using a design thinking approach I can see many opportunities to create something that really works . In the past , the intranet team would have developed something using their best understanding , which may have been an improvement but not ‘ wowed ’ . Approach I have probably used aspects of mind mapping in many projects that I have undertaken before . Working in the digital space , it is common practice for us to engage the user heavily in the process . But the process had not been so clearly defined before . There were some practical learnings I had which I would do differently next time , including the time allowed for the session ( I felt a little rushed — more time would be better ) , the rooms used and the process followed . I would probably do the mind mapping a little earlier in the process too , as we had done some wireframing already .