Chris Hammond – Design Thinking for Innovation – Reflection Activity: Mind Mapping

Challenge

I work in consulting, and a major retailer asked us to help them understand how they could make  their in-store environments “more digital”. They have a long-term plan to move towards stores  which are almost fully automated and wanted to understand how they could design a store which  moved in this direction. Their brief to us was to assess ‘what is’ – that is, the current in-store  experience for customers and staff, and explore how staff and customers in different countries  would want to experience stores in the future. From this, we could then define ‘what if’ – the criteria  needed to develop a prototype store, and ideas about what the experience should be like.

Selection

We’ve worked with design thinking methodologies in the past, and given our objective was to help  define ‘what if’ we opted for a version of the mind-mapping tool. However, as the project was  international, had a limited budget and was fast-turnaround, we opted not to bring customers into  the room at the end of the project (co-creation, which is how this technique is explained in the video  lectures). Instead we would capture their views through qualitative research and play this back to  stakeholders in the mind-mapping session.

Application

We started off by conducting our qualitative research in different countries. This meant going to the  stores, interviewing staff and customers, capturing pictures and video of the store environments and  also recording how long customers spent in store, where they went, and so-on. From this we created  a detailed picture of ‘what is’, which includes current customer journey maps for the highest priority  customer missions our client was interested in (e.g. buying a new product, upgrading their existing  product, and more).

Subsequently we brought together all of the key stakeholders that had an interest in this problem in  a workshop, and started off by giving them an overview of ‘what is’. We put up pictures, video and  other research materials on the walls, and after our overview asked clients to immerse themselves in  these findings on their own. A few minutes later we put them into small groups to discuss what  they’d seen and come up with some common themes about the current experience and how it could  be improved.

Next, we facilitated a discussion amongst everyone in the room to draw out these themes, and then  together we wrote ‘what if’ customer journeys – that is, ideally how customers would want their  store experience to go. Once we’d created an overview of these journeys together, each individual  came up with ideas about how to deliver this and wrote them on post-it notes, before placing them  under the relevant part of the ‘what if’ customer journey. The final step was to review these ideas as  a group and decide which were the most promising, which we did via dot voting (giving everyone  stickers and asking them to place them on the ideas they thought best).

Insight

We learnt a lot from this approach. Three insights stood out for me:

•  We disconfirmed a hypothesis we had started the project with – that quick service was  important for all customers. In fact, we found this varied by a lot by mission (i.e. what the  customer was trying to achieve). People who had come to the store with a specific problem  to be solved wanted someone to come and talk to them straight away, but those thinking  about buying a new product appreciated a bit more time alone to browse, get comfortable  etc.

•  Therefore, we needed to target staff on people wanting to solve problems; those browsing  were often happier interacting with machines than people. This meant that the store would  need different zones, with a different atmosphere and different levels of technology.

•  One thing that emerged as a big problem for customers was waiting – once a customer had  decided what they want to do, they were only prepared to wait a few minutes to get it done.  This meant we needed to focus on using both technology and people to minimise waiting  times, and also make the store environment more pleasant and entertaining (to reduce the  pain of waiting).

Approach

We found conducting detailed research before the workshop and then giving an overview to  stakeholders was immensely helpful – this primed them on what we were trying to achieve and  helped focus their minds. However, not being able to have real customers in the workshop was a  downside – I think this would have really helped our clients understand the problems they were  trying to solve. These customers could also have helped come up with new ideas (co-creation),  which can be a really effective (and fun) technique.


Chris Hammond – Design Thinking for Innovation – Reflection Activity : Mind Mapping Challenge I work in consulting , and a major retailer asked us to help them understand how they could make their in - store environments “ more digital ” . They have a long - term plan to move towards stores which are almost fully automated and wanted to understand how they could design a store which moved in this direction . Their brief to us was to assess ‘ what is ’ – that is , the current in - store experience for customers and staff , and explore how staff and customers in different countries would want to experience stores in the future . From this , we could then define ‘ what if ’ – the criteria needed to develop a prototype store , and ideas about what the experience should be like . Selection We ’ve worked with design thinking methodologies in the past , and given our objective was to help define ‘ what if ’ we opted for a version of the mind - mapping tool . However , as the project was international , had a limited budget and was fast - turnaround , we opted not to bring customers into the room at the end of the project ( co - creation , which is how this technique is explained in the video lectures ) . Instead we would capture their views through qualitative research and play this back to stakeholders in the mind - mapping session . Application We started off by conducting our qualitative research in different countries . This meant going to the stores , interviewing staff and customers , capturing pictures and video of the store environments and also recording how long customers spent in store , where they went , and so - on . From this we created a detailed picture of ‘ what is ’ , which includes current customer journey maps for the highest priority customer missions our client was interested in ( e.g. buying a new product , upgrading their existing product , and more ) . Subsequently we brought together all of the key stakeholders that had an interest in this problem in a workshop , and started off by giving them an overview of ‘ what is ’ . We put up pictures , video and other research materials on the walls , and after our overview asked clients to immerse themselves in these findings on their own . A few minutes later we put them into small groups to discuss what they ’d seen and come up with some common themes about the current experience and how it could be improved . Next , we facilitated a discussion amongst everyone in the room to draw out these themes , and then together we wrote ‘ what if ’ customer journeys – that is , ideally how customers would want their store experience to go . Once we ’d created an overview of these journeys together , each individual came up with ideas about how to deliver this and wrote them on post - it notes , before placing them under the relevant part of the ‘ what if ’ customer journey . The final step was to review these ideas as a group and decide which were the most promising , which we did via dot voting ( giving everyone stickers and asking them to place them on the ideas they thought best ) . Insight We learnt a lot from this approach . Three insights stood out for me : • We disconfirmed a hypothesis we had started the project with – that quick service was important for all customers . In fact , we found this varied by a lot by mission ( i.e. what the customer was trying to achieve ) . People who had come to the store with a specific problem to be solved wanted someone to come and talk to them straight away , but those thinking about buying a new product appreciated a bit more time alone to browse , get comfortable etc . • Therefore , we needed to target staff on people wanting to solve problems ; those browsing were often happier interacting with machines than people . This meant that the store would need different zones , with a different atmosphere and different levels of technology . • One thing that emerged as a big problem for customers was waiting – once a customer had decided what they want to do , they were only prepared to wait a few minutes to get it done . This meant we needed to focus on using both technology and people to minimise waiting times , and also make the store environment more pleasant and entertaining ( to reduce the pain of waiting ) . Approach We found conducting detailed research before the workshop and then giving an overview to stakeholders was immensely helpful – this primed them on what we were trying to achieve and helped focus their minds . However , not being able to have real customers in the workshop was a downside – I think this would have really helped our clients understand the problems they were trying to solve . These customers could also have helped come up with new ideas ( co - creation ) , which can be a really effective ( and fun ) technique .