The Design Thinking Assignment

1. Challenge:

As a member of the Eurobank Greece, a non-profit organization that promotes promotes public  speaking and leadership, I have a structured program to help improve my public speaking skills. I had a  project called ‘Present a Proposal’ in which I had to look closely at my personal or toastmasters life,   choose an issue impacting them to work on and present a proposal outlining my solution. I chose to work  on the Best  Speaker award that is given to the speaker who is voted to have given the best speech in a  particular Toastmasters meeting. The voting usually happens at the end of a meeting and members are  given a few minutes to decide who spoke the best that meeting. Bear in mind that in a meeting, both  experienced and inexperienced members give speeches. I felt this system of voting was sub-optimum and  inherently biased as experienced speakers, who mostly won these awards, had a clear advantage in terms  of on-stage presence in comparison to inexperienced speakers. This sometimes discouraged new and  improving speakers who had shown tremendous progress. If the voting could be made more objective,  focussing even on those who made significant growth and not just who spoke the best, I felt the awards  would serve their purpose better.

I made an online form that lists all the speakers who are going to speak in a particular meeting and a set  of questions per speaker. These questions asked the audience member to rate the speaker on a few  parameters like content, logic and presentation of the speech. These parameters are used in international  speech contests to judge speeches. The rating is between fair, good, very good and excellent worth 1,2,3  and 4 points respectively. At the end of the meeting, the number of points accumulated by each speaker is  calculated using a program I have coded. This way the best speaker is decided based on certain objectives. This helps the voters stay vary of inherent biases and prejudice and remain objective in their voting.

2. Selection:

I chose the tool of Learning Launch to test my solution. I needed to validate my solution before presenting  it in the proposal. Also, I wanted to test my solution fast and cheap [Ref: Learning Launch Tool -2:46 – 2:51].  I had the meeting to test this solution scheduled within a day of having my solution in place. I was  planning to implement this in a recently chartered club which was open to new experiments and okay even if I failed in its application during their meeting.  I felt this learning was much needed to test the  practicality and real usefulness of my solution. I needed to gauge whether the members of a meeting were  willing to adapt to this solution and whether my solution was user friendly. I needed to see the live usage  and understand any difficulties the members faced.

3. Application:

Once I had the online form and the code to calculate all the votes instantly, I contacted a recently  chartered Toastmasters Club and asked the president if I could conduct this experiment in their meeting.  He was happy with my solution and gave me a go ahead. As a backup I kept a simple online form which  emulated the usual form of voting ready.

It was an online meeting. So I joined the meeting early, and explained my solution at the beginning of the  meet. I asked everyone to open the link to the online form.  I also chose to give a speech in this meeting,  presenting my solution as the proposal. I scheduled my speech first so that everyone got a clear picture of  my solution,  what I was planning to do in the meeting and the thought process behind its implementation. Once, my speech was over, it was the first to get evaluated by all the members. This continued after every  speaker. I kept reminding everyone after every speech to rate the speakers. And at the end of the meeting,  the points accumulated by each speaker  was calculated and I had the name of the best speaker ready.

Post the meeting, I asked everyone for their feedback of using the form I had created and if there were  suggestions for improvement. The feedback in general was positive and I got a few suggestions to make  the process more easy to follow. A few had queries about the solution, and I clarified them.

4. Insight:

The first thing that I observed was that my solution wasn’t as automated as I expected it to be. This helped me fine tune the online form to accommodate any number of speakers and calculate their results with  more efficient and independent code.

I also realised that there were few cases which I had not accommodated while designing my solution. Like  what happens if a member misses the speech of one speaker. Should he/she be allowed to participate in  voting, and if yes will it affect the end result. Because the form I had made assumed that all would vote for all speakers.

I also realised that people become more impatient as the meeting goes on. So some questions in the form  asking for any comments about the speech were filled for first few speakers but not any other speakers.

My final realisation was that if I had to solve this problem, then I had to look beyond just an online form  and think more on the lines of a web-app. This broadened my problem statement a little as online forms  where the only tech solution explored till now. This solution can be easily customised for a particular meet and  can be made intuitive.

Also, the solutions till now didn’t really have a personal touch. If I could incorporate the pictures of  speakers, and the members who are voting, I think that would make it more interactive and fun.  This can  make the shift to my product much easier.

5. Approach:

My alternate approach includes using the same tool with a few changes.

For my particular solution, which is basically a tech product, I would definitely stick to learning launches as they are quick, cheap and comparatively stress free opportunities to test my product.

Next time I would make sure that I am better prepared to take feedback during the learning launch. I felt  this time I was very focused on making sure that my product was working that I felt I didn’t collect  feedback and observe users while using the solution as much as I could have. This small change could  make my insights more qualitative and strong.

Next time, I would make sure I have a few things to look out for in particular when interacting with users in order to uncover unarticulated pain points while using my product. I need to put myself in the shoes of the user before hand and try out my solution. This way I can learn how to think like the customer and improve  my understanding of the user.


The Design Thinking Assignment 1 . Challenge : As a member of the Eurobank Greece , a non - profit organization that promotes promotes public speaking and leadership , I have a structured program to help improve my public speaking skills . I had a project called ‘ Present a Proposal ’ in which I had to look closely at my personal or toastmasters life , choose an issue impacting them to work on and present a proposal outlining my solution . I chose to work on the Best Speaker award that is given to the speaker who is voted to have given the best speech in a particular Toastmasters meeting . The voting usually happens at the end of a meeting and members are given a few minutes to decide who spoke the best that meeting . Bear in mind that in a meeting , both experienced and inexperienced members give speeches . I felt this system of voting was sub - optimum and inherently biased as experienced speakers , who mostly won these awards , had a clear advantage in terms of on - stage presence in comparison to inexperienced speakers . This sometimes discouraged new and improving speakers who had shown tremendous progress . If the voting could be made more objective , focussing even on those who made significant growth and not just who spoke the best , I felt the awards would serve their purpose better . I made an online form that lists all the speakers who are going to speak in a particular meeting and a set of questions per speaker . These questions asked the audience member to rate the speaker on a few parameters like content , logic and presentation of the speech . These parameters are used in international speech contests to judge speeches . The rating is between fair , good , very good and excellent worth 1,2,3 and 4 points respectively . At the end of the meeting , the number of points accumulated by each speaker is calculated using a program I have coded . This way the best speaker is decided based on certain objectives . This helps the voters stay vary of inherent biases and prejudice and remain objective in their voting . 2 . Selection : I chose the tool of Learning Launch to test my solution . I needed to validate my solution before presenting it in the proposal . Also , I wanted to test my solution fast and cheap [ Ref : Learning Launch Tool -2:46 – 2:51 ] . I had the meeting to test this solution scheduled within a day of having my solution in place . I was planning to implement this in a recently chartered club which was open to new experiments and okay even if I failed in its application during their meeting . I felt this learning was much needed to test the practicality and real usefulness of my solution . I needed to gauge whether the members of a meeting were willing to adapt to this solution and whether my solution was user friendly . I needed to see the live usage and understand any difficulties the members faced . 3 . Application : Once I had the online form and the code to calculate all the votes instantly , I contacted a recently chartered Toastmasters Club and asked the president if I could conduct this experiment in their meeting . He was happy with my solution and gave me a go ahead . As a backup I kept a simple online form which emulated the usual form of voting ready . It was an online meeting . So I joined the meeting early , and explained my solution at the beginning of the meet . I asked everyone to open the link to the online form . I also chose to give a speech in this meeting , presenting my solution as the proposal . I scheduled my speech first so that everyone got a clear picture of my solution , what I was planning to do in the meeting and the thought process behind its implementation . Once , my speech was over , it was the first to get evaluated by all the members . This continued after every speaker . I kept reminding everyone after every speech to rate the speakers . And at the end of the meeting , the points accumulated by each speaker was calculated and I had the name of the best speaker ready . Post the meeting , I asked everyone for their feedback of using the form I had created and if there were suggestions for improvement . The feedback in general was positive and I got a few suggestions to make the process more easy to follow . A few had queries about the solution , and I clarified them . 4 . Insight : The first thing that I observed was that my solution was n’t as automated as I expected it to be . This helped me fine tune the online form to accommodate any number of speakers and calculate their results with more efficient and independent code . I also realised that there were few cases which I had not accommodated while designing my solution . Like what happens if a member misses the speech of one speaker . Should he / she be allowed to participate in voting , and if yes will it affect the end result . Because the form I had made assumed that all would vote for all speakers . I also realised that people become more impatient as the meeting goes on . So some questions in the form asking for any comments about the speech were filled for first few speakers but not any other speakers . My final realisation was that if I had to solve this problem , then I had to look beyond just an online form and think more on the lines of a web - app . This broadened my problem statement a little as online forms where the only tech solution explored till now . This solution can be easily customised for a particular meet and can be made intuitive . Also , the solutions till now did n’t really have a personal touch . If I could incorporate the pictures of speakers , and the members who are voting , I think that would make it more interactive and fun . This can make the shift to my product much easier . 5 . Approach : My alternate approach includes using the same tool with a few changes . For my particular solution , which is basically a tech product , I would definitely stick to learning launches as they are quick , cheap and comparatively stress free opportunities to test my product . Next time I would make sure that I am better prepared to take feedback during the learning launch . I felt this time I was very focused on making sure that my product was working that I felt I did n’t collect feedback and observe users while using the solution as much as I could have . This small change could make my insights more qualitative and strong . Next time , I would make sure I have a few things to look out for in particular when interacting with users in order to uncover unarticulated pain points while using my product . I need to put myself in the shoes of the user before hand and try out my solution . This way I can learn how to think like the customer and improve my understanding of the user .