Design thinking, course assignment      Esraa Han

Challenge  I have organized a lot of workshops to understand the current challenges of my customers. Typically,  customers have a need to solve challenges in their current environment (process inefficiency, customer  attrition, operating model issues etc.) which I have approached with tools such as current state mapping,  root cause identification and process analysis. Avion approached me with a new kind of ask: how  can we ensure we are relevant to our customers in 20 years? How can we ensure we understand our  customers’ needs before they do? To be clear, there was nothing wrong with Avion’s business:  their customers were happy, they were among top 5 players in their industry, their product was good and  served its purpose. Tools that I typically use would not work here, as Avion wanted to project into  the future. We needed a new way of approaching their problem.

The main challenge for us was the culture and current mindset of Avion, which was very much  focused on their current state of business. Avion’s employees are solution engineers who are used  to solving current technical challenges for their customers. Avion has huge amount of customer  data, market reports and segment analysis available. They use quantitative methodologies to analyze  customers and their profitability. Avion’s organisation is scattered across several locations with  stakeholders who have never worked together. We needed a way for these stakeholders to really focus on  customer needs and to start projecting what their customer needs might look like in the future.

Selection  We needed a way to help Avion to start projecting into the future, something they had not done  before. We needed a simple, projective technique and process to help the skeptical engineers to put  themselves into their customers shoes. We needed a tool that was engaging, communicative and intuitive  and that would allow distilling a large amount of data into information and insights that can be easily  communicated. I came across the Mind Mapping tool, as described by Rejane Soto and  Amy Martinez in module 3. It really resonated with me when Amy Martinez said in module 3 that  Mind Mapping tool is created together with all relevant stakeholders to “represent the minds of  customers”. This resonated and felt like exactly what Avion needed, which is why I chose mind  mapping as the tool to be applied in my workshop for Avion.

Application  I applied the Mind Mapping process, as described by Amy Martinez and Rejane Soto in  module 3. I will now briefly describe how I applied these steps for Avion in practice.

1) ‘Hold a yard sale’. We organized a workshop space, one large room and two breakout rooms. We

put Avion’s materials on the walls (customer data, pain points, graphs, market surveys, info  graphs, sales figures) to inspire the participants. We also included some inspirational examples  from other industries. We also assigned participants a pre-assignment related to our topic, and  shared the results with everyone in advance (What problems do our customers have today?)

2) ‘Invite shoppers’. We invited 15 stakeholders from different Avion locations. These people

had never worked with each other before. The common denominator was that they all had some  connection to the customer (sales, marketing, customer data insights, user experience etc.)

3) ‘Offer tours’. Stakeholders, i.e. workshop participants, reviewed all pre-assignments in advance of

the workshop (we also offered a recap in the workshop space). Participants had 20 minutes to  review all the materials. There were also post-its and markers available to write reflections.

4) ‘Ask guests to pick out the good stuff’. Participants had different types of stickers and post-its

(heart-shaped, different colors etc.) which they used to note what fits and what does not, what is  important and post-its and markers to make additions on what is missing. This took 30 minutes.

5) ‘Have guests cluster good stuff’. After a short break we divided the participants into groups of 5

people. Everyone had 5 minutes for individual reflection after which the groups looked at the  boards and identified themes and clusters. The groups then identified connections between  different themes, reorganized them and found the outliers. This exercise took 60 minutes.

6) ‘Identify insights related to each cluster and look for connections between each cluster’. Now, the

walls were filled with circles of post-its with themes/headings such as ‘technical issues’ or ‘access to  data’. The groups then went through their headings and clusters and started to brainstorm what  type of ‘napkin pitch’ (as described by Rejane Soto in module 3) could describe each  theme. We described the napkin pitch being like a bold promise to our customers. When done,  each group presented their napkin pitches to the other groups. This exercise took 60 minutes.

7) We wrapped up the workshop with a joint, one-hour discussion with all 15 participants.

Insight  This was the first time I applied design thinking tool in practice. I have used several tools and methods to  understand the current state but this exercise was different; there were no right or wrong answers to be  found – instead, the real value came from the stakeholders jointly agreeing on what their current reality  looks like and what insights related to customers matter most. Mind mapping was an engaging process for  the participants, as it put a lot of focus on putting everyone into their customers shoes.

My main insight came when the group had identified clusters, themes and outliers and started reflecting on  their findings. They realized that something important was missing from the board. One participant said it  well: “We need to enable our customers to help their customers, this is where we need look into in the  future”. Even though nobody knows how the future will look like, the participants all agreed that this type  of design criteria should be satisfied. Thanks to our mind mapping exercise, the group came into this  conclusion together, and it really shifted the way Avion regards their customers. This made me see  how valuable design thinking tools can when there is a need to jointly project into the uncertain future.

Approach  Based on this exercise I definitely see mind mapping as a useful tool to form a joint understanding among  stakeholders. We applied the tool successfully and it brought about real value that would have been  difficult to gain with the workshop tools I have used before. Next time, I would focus more on facilitating  the mind mapping process – as majority of the stakeholders were solution engineers, they wanted to  advance to problem solving too soon and were a skeptical of the exercises that we were making them do. I  would spend a full day instead of half day to have enough time for the stakeholders in the mind mapping  process. I would also not include a pre-assignment but instead try to do all the exercises together with the  whole group. I would also make sure we had enough time for the final reflections, as this is where the most  valuable discussions happened.

All in all, the mind mapping tool worked well and served its purpose: the group was able to align on a  common understanding of their customers reality. Avion gained meaningful insights that can be  translated into design criteria, enabling Avion to serve their customers well also in the future.


Design thinking , course assignment Esraa Han Challenge I have organized a lot of workshops to understand the current challenges of my customers . Typically , customers have a need to solve challenges in their current environment ( process inefficiency , customer attrition , operating model issues etc . ) which I have approached with tools such as current state mapping , root cause identification and process analysis . Avion approached me with a new kind of ask : how can we ensure we are relevant to our customers in 20 years ? How can we ensure we understand our customers ’ needs before they do ? To be clear , there was nothing wrong with Avion ’s business : their customers were happy , they were among top 5 players in their industry , their product was good and served its purpose . Tools that I typically use would not work here , as Avion wanted to project into the future . We needed a new way of approaching their problem . The main challenge for us was the culture and current mindset of Avion , which was very much focused on their current state of business . Avion ’s employees are solution engineers who are used to solving current technical challenges for their customers . Avion has huge amount of customer data , market reports and segment analysis available . They use quantitative methodologies to analyze customers and their profitability . Avion ’s organisation is scattered across several locations with stakeholders who have never worked together . We needed a way for these stakeholders to really focus on customer needs and to start projecting what their customer needs might look like in the future . Selection We needed a way to help Avion to start projecting into the future , something they had not done before . We needed a simple , projective technique and process to help the skeptical engineers to put themselves into their customers shoes . We needed a tool that was engaging , communicative and intuitive and that would allow distilling a large amount of data into information and insights that can be easily communicated . I came across the Mind Mapping tool , as described by Rejane Soto and Amy Martinez in module 3 . It really resonated with me when Amy Martinez said in module 3 that Mind Mapping tool is created together with all relevant stakeholders to “ represent the minds of customers ” . This resonated and felt like exactly what Avion needed , which is why I chose mind mapping as the tool to be applied in my workshop for Avion . Application I applied the Mind Mapping process , as described by Amy Martinez and Rejane Soto in module 3 . I will now briefly describe how I applied these steps for Avion in practice . 1 ) ‘ Hold a yard sale ’ . We organized a workshop space , one large room and two breakout rooms . We put Avion ’s materials on the walls ( customer data , pain points , graphs , market surveys , info graphs , sales figures ) to inspire the participants . We also included some inspirational examples from other industries . We also assigned participants a pre - assignment related to our topic , and shared the results with everyone in advance ( What problems do our customers have today ? ) 2 ) ‘ Invite shoppers ’ . We invited 15 stakeholders from different Avion locations . These people had never worked with each other before . The common denominator was that they all had some connection to the customer ( sales , marketing , customer data insights , user experience etc . ) 3 ) ‘ Offer tours ’ . Stakeholders , i.e. workshop participants , reviewed all pre - assignments in advance of the workshop ( we also offered a recap in the workshop space ) . Participants had 20 minutes to review all the materials . There were also post - its and markers available to write reflections . 4 ) ‘ Ask guests to pick out the good stuff ’ . Participants had different types of stickers and post - its ( heart - shaped , different colors etc . ) which they used to note what fits and what does not , what is important and post - its and markers to make additions on what is missing . This took 30 minutes . 5 ) ‘ Have guests cluster good stuff ’ . After a short break we divided the participants into groups of 5 people . Everyone had 5 minutes for individual reflection after which the groups looked at the boards and identified themes and clusters . The groups then identified connections between different themes , reorganized them and found the outliers . This exercise took 60 minutes . 6 ) ‘ Identify insights related to each cluster and look for connections between each cluster ’ . Now , the walls were filled with circles of post - its with themes / headings such as ‘ technical issues ’ or ‘ access to data ’ . The groups then went through their headings and clusters and started to brainstorm what type of ‘ napkin pitch ’ ( as described by Rejane Soto in module 3 ) could describe each theme . We described the napkin pitch being like a bold promise to our customers . When done , each group presented their napkin pitches to the other groups . This exercise took 60 minutes . 7 ) We wrapped up the workshop with a joint , one - hour discussion with all 15 participants . Insight This was the first time I applied design thinking tool in practice . I have used several tools and methods to understand the current state but this exercise was different ; there were no right or wrong answers to be found – instead , the real value came from the stakeholders jointly agreeing on what their current reality looks like and what insights related to customers matter most . Mind mapping was an engaging process for the participants , as it put a lot of focus on putting everyone into their customers shoes . My main insight came when the group had identified clusters , themes and outliers and started reflecting on their findings . They realized that something important was missing from the board . One participant said it well : “ We need to enable our customers to help their customers , this is where we need look into in the future ” . Even though nobody knows how the future will look like , the participants all agreed that this type of design criteria should be satisfied . Thanks to our mind mapping exercise , the group came into this conclusion together , and it really shifted the way Avion regards their customers . This made me see how valuable design thinking tools can when there is a need to jointly project into the uncertain future . Approach Based on this exercise I definitely see mind mapping as a useful tool to form a joint understanding among stakeholders . We applied the tool successfully and it brought about real value that would have been difficult to gain with the workshop tools I have used before . Next time , I would focus more on facilitating the mind mapping process – as majority of the stakeholders were solution engineers , they wanted to advance to problem solving too soon and were a skeptical of the exercises that we were making them do . I would spend a full day instead of half day to have enough time for the stakeholders in the mind mapping process . I would also not include a pre - assignment but instead try to do all the exercises together with the whole group . I would also make sure we had enough time for the final reflections , as this is where the most valuable discussions happened . All in all , the mind mapping tool worked well and served its purpose : the group was able to align on a common understanding of their customers reality . Avion gained meaningful insights that can be translated into design criteria , enabling Avion to serve their customers well also in the future .