Reflection Paper

Mind Mapping

Design Thinking for Innovation

January 4, 2020

Challenge

In my current role, I support a range of government agency clients who are facing  considerable resource challenges in meeting citizen expectations for service.  These  federal agencies have recognized improvements in the digital interaction are critical  to addressing the overall growth of interactions that must be supported with the  same, or fewer, resources than in prior years.  My clients view self-service as a  critical strategy that can reduce the volume of face-to-face or phone interactions to  manageable levels, while still allowing more personalized, real-time support to the  citizens who require it.  Thus, government is renewing its focus on UX to serve its  customers better.

In one specific example, my client had amassed a patchwork of siloed digital assets  with limited integration and little regard for customer effort or specific purpose.  With  the purest of intentions, each digital touchpoint had been conceived individually, and  sought to address broad-based customer needs.  However, over time these web  sites had grown and expanded to the point where users found it impossible to find  information, and often had difficulty determining which destination was the right one  for their purpose.

Complicating matters was that these digital assets followed the structure of the  agency’s organizational design with each department having a degree of ownership  over a subset of the digital experience.  Understandably, the departments had  become quite accustomed to their respective portion of the overall digital experience  and were resistant to any holistic change without reliable evidence.  In our favor, the  one common thread across the organization was a deep commitment to the agency’s  mission and a true empathy for the citizens they served.

Selection

In this situation, we knew we needed to provide evidence of the problem and its  primary drivers using customer feedback and related data.  Given citizen  expectations were influenced not only by their interactions with government, but also  by every interaction they experienced in the private sector, we also planned to bring  forward exemplars from leading brands in industry.  Overall, our research would  cover a range of user types and also bring forward inspiring use cases to illustrate  trends in UX that could be leveraged by our client.

We were confident our work would uncover meaningful new insights to help guide  improvements in UX.  What was less clear was how to enable a broad range of client  stakeholders – some of whom were vocal detractors of the overall project, and many  of whom had rather tenuous working relationships – to consume and engage with the  research in a way that would be memorable and guide the future direction of the  project.  We chose to employ a mind map to synthesize and distill insights across the  inter-departmental project leadership team.

Application

In planning the mind-map exercise, we first documented all the research and findings  we had gathered and affixed the insights to the walls of the conference room we  used for the working session.  Included in the artifacts we shared were customer and  employee verbatims – quotes taken directly from the interviews we conducted with

both customers and employees.  We also showed images of most visited digital  pages with traffic volumes and other digital metrics we had gathered during our  discovery process.  These were combined with exemplars and quotes from private  sector leaders as inspiration.  Before the workshop attendees arrived for the session,  the meeting room truly looked like an art gallery with photos and images, data and  metrics, post-it notes with specific quotes, etc.

When workshop attendees arrived, we invited them to peruse the information at their  own leisure to consume and digest what we found before our agenda formally began.   Many with coffee in hand, attendees began to traverse the room, pausing and  reading the artifacts we had posted before being directed to a seat at a small round  table with 5 – 7  colleagues.  Early in our agenda, we then conducted a more formal  gallery walk, providing a clipboard and individual post it notes to each attendee and  asking them to lift out the insights they found most salient from the gallery walk.  In  the smaller groups, we had standing flip charts for use in sharing the results in the  smaller team setting.

Each working group was facilitated by a member of my team, who guided the group  through the exercise of sharing their findings, clustering them into key themes and  drawing connections across the different themes before finally leading a discussion  that resulted in insight statements for each theme and building a short list of the  criteria that would truly address each problem – high level design criteria.

Insight

By applying the mind-mapping technique, we were able to share a considerable  amount of information with a broad range of stakeholders in a relatively short time,  and in a highly engaging and visual way.  What I found was that presenting  information in this way caused people to consume and understand it better –  something that lengthy “white papers” or static PowerPoint presentations could never  reliably promise.  Having a shared perspective based on research brought people  together around a shared sense of the challenge.  Some of the “turf battles” seemed  to subside slightly, as previous project detractors embraced the project and found  common ground with stakeholders across organizational boundaries.  It seemed that  having done sufficient research on the “What Is” really helped build the case for the  entire project and also clearly defined our problem.  It seemed to me that this clarity  is what had been lacking in the past and led to the project’s failure in previous  attempts the agency had made.  Now, armed with better data that people understood  and had the chance to interact with, the team agreed on the problem and at a high  level, what needed to be accomplished for the user.

Approach

I felt the approach we took was effective and would not make very many changes to   the overall structure we used.  I thought having workshop participants consume the  information on the walls at their own pace was effective, and also allowing them the  time to peruse the “gallery” before the day actually began just gave that much more  time to digest the information. The one thing I might do next time is circulate some  information in advance of the session for those inclined to go deeper into the findings  – I think pre-reads might have been useful and may have enabled us to cover even  more ground.  But overall, I felt the day was extremely successful and we received  very positive feedback from several of the attendees.


Reflection Paper Mind Mapping Design Thinking for Innovation January 4 , 2020 Challenge In my current role , I support a range of government agency clients who are facing considerable resource challenges in meeting citizen expectations for service . These federal agencies have recognized improvements in the digital interaction are critical to addressing the overall growth of interactions that must be supported with the same , or fewer , resources than in prior years . My clients view self - service as a critical strategy that can reduce the volume of face - to - face or phone interactions to manageable levels , while still allowing more personalized , real - time support to the citizens who require it . Thus , government is renewing its focus on UX to serve its customers better . In one specific example , my client had amassed a patchwork of siloed digital assets with limited integration and little regard for customer effort or specific purpose . With the purest of intentions , each digital touchpoint had been conceived individually , and sought to address broad - based customer needs . However , over time these web sites had grown and expanded to the point where users found it impossible to find information , and often had difficulty determining which destination was the right one for their purpose . Complicating matters was that these digital assets followed the structure of the agency ’s organizational design with each department having a degree of ownership over a subset of the digital experience . Understandably , the departments had become quite accustomed to their respective portion of the overall digital experience and were resistant to any holistic change without reliable evidence . In our favor , the one common thread across the organization was a deep commitment to the agency ’s mission and a true empathy for the citizens they served . Selection In this situation , we knew we needed to provide evidence of the problem and its primary drivers using customer feedback and related data . Given citizen expectations were influenced not only by their interactions with government , but also by every interaction they experienced in the private sector , we also planned to bring forward exemplars from leading brands in industry . Overall , our research would cover a range of user types and also bring forward inspiring use cases to illustrate trends in UX that could be leveraged by our client . We were confident our work would uncover meaningful new insights to help guide improvements in UX . What was less clear was how to enable a broad range of client stakeholders – some of whom were vocal detractors of the overall project , and many of whom had rather tenuous working relationships – to consume and engage with the research in a way that would be memorable and guide the future direction of the project . We chose to employ a mind map to synthesize and distill insights across the inter - departmental project leadership team . Application In planning the mind - map exercise , we first documented all the research and findings we had gathered and affixed the insights to the walls of the conference room we used for the working session . Included in the artifacts we shared were customer and employee verbatims – quotes taken directly from the interviews we conducted with both customers and employees . We also showed images of most visited digital pages with traffic volumes and other digital metrics we had gathered during our discovery process . These were combined with exemplars and quotes from private sector leaders as inspiration . Before the workshop attendees arrived for the session , the meeting room truly looked like an art gallery with photos and images , data and metrics , post - it notes with specific quotes , etc . When workshop attendees arrived , we invited them to peruse the information at their own leisure to consume and digest what we found before our agenda formally began . Many with coffee in hand , attendees began to traverse the room , pausing and reading the artifacts we had posted before being directed to a seat at a small round table with 5 – 7 colleagues . Early in our agenda , we then conducted a more formal gallery walk , providing a clipboard and individual post it notes to each attendee and asking them to lift out the insights they found most salient from the gallery walk . In the smaller groups , we had standing flip charts for use in sharing the results in the smaller team setting . Each working group was facilitated by a member of my team , who guided the group through the exercise of sharing their findings , clustering them into key themes and drawing connections across the different themes before finally leading a discussion that resulted in insight statements for each theme and building a short list of the criteria that would truly address each problem – high level design criteria . Insight By applying the mind - mapping technique , we were able to share a considerable amount of information with a broad range of stakeholders in a relatively short time , and in a highly engaging and visual way . What I found was that presenting information in this way caused people to consume and understand it better – something that lengthy “ white papers ” or static PowerPoint presentations could never reliably promise . Having a shared perspective based on research brought people together around a shared sense of the challenge . Some of the “ turf battles ” seemed to subside slightly , as previous project detractors embraced the project and found common ground with stakeholders across organizational boundaries . It seemed that having done sufficient research on the “ What Is ” really helped build the case for the entire project and also clearly defined our problem . It seemed to me that this clarity is what had been lacking in the past and led to the project ’s failure in previous attempts the agency had made . Now , armed with better data that people understood and had the chance to interact with , the team agreed on the problem and at a high level , what needed to be accomplished for the user . Approach I felt the approach we took was effective and would not make very many changes to the overall structure we used . I thought having workshop participants consume the information on the walls at their own pace was effective , and also allowing them the time to peruse the “ gallery ” before the day actually began just gave that much more time to digest the information . The one thing I might do next time is circulate some information in advance of the session for those inclined to go deeper into the findings – I think pre - reads might have been useful and may have enabled us to cover even more ground . But overall , I felt the day was extremely successful and we received very positive feedback from several of the attendees .