DESIGN THINKING │ REFLECTION │ MIND MAPPING

CHALLENGE    The challenge I chose to apply my now gained knowledge about design thinking to is mainly based around the  topic of internal perception versus external perception. In further detail: The challenge is about a big media com- pany, which manages a huge portfolio of magazines, digital products and media services. The company is mostly  known for its big selection of print magazines, which makes it the country’s leading magazine publishing house. A  large proportion of the revenues are generated through advertisements and advertorials, which are acquired di- rectly by companies or, most often the case, their representative agencies. Because of the strongly decreasing  importance of print magazines, the company is more and more - but at a slow pace - shifting its focus towards  digital magazines. Within the company, the top management as well as the staff perceive themselves and their  work as innovative. Outside the company: Increasingly less so. This is mostly obvious in meetings with agencies,  who usually have a much younger, digitally savvy staff which grew up with digital magazines rather than print  magazines. The problem: The agencies perceive the company as not in touch with the latest digital trends, the  company (from the agencies’ point of view) lacks modern-day credibility and the company and agencies less and  less connect at eye level. Even though - and this is important - the company manages a big and very successful  portfolio of digital magazines and could easily cater for the agencies’ needs.       SELECTION    The tool I used for my design thinking process to approach the above-mentioned challenge was the tool of Mind  Mapping. I chose to use Mind Mapping, because the assessment or exploration phase of the process (with what  if? being the leading question) resulted in a large quantity of data, which as a consequence needed to be grouped  (mind mapped) to look for patterns and insights. Those patterns and insights - first and foremost the dominant and  promising ones - formed the basis respectively created the criteria for the idea generation phase (with what if?  being the leading question).      APPLICATION    To address my challenge, I initiated a workshop with representatives of both the media company and an agency.  I carefully selected the participants according to varying socio-demographic details and across all hierarchy levels.  For the activity, I divided all the agency representatives as well as all the representatives of the media company  into two groups each, which resulted in four groups of three people each. I then told both groups of agency repre- sentatives to put themselves in the role of the media company and - accordingly - both groups of the media com- pany’s representatives to put themselves in the role of the agency. Two groups (one in the role of the media  company, one in the role of the agency) I then told that they should discuss how the embodied organisation possibly  perceives itself internally, whereas the other two groups (one in the role of the media company, one in the role of  the agency) should discuss how the embodied organisation is possibly perceived by external stakeholders. I gave  those four groups about 20 minutes to discuss and note their different thoughts and ideas on slips of paper.

The next task was to assemble the Mind Map, for which I had clustered a big board into two sections: Strengths  and Weaknesses. Beyond that, I deliberately not gave the participants any advice or recommendation on how to  cluster the Mind Map. With this, I wanted to allow this very diverse group of stakeholders to learn from each other  in the process of defining the scope of the Mind Map, the key elements as well as the relationships between the  individual elements. Throughout this process, I acted as a moderator by - for example - asking them to further  elaborate on their thoughts, triggering discussions or sharing thought-provoking impulses.     While clustering the Mind Map together and listening to the thoughts and statements generated in the assessment  process, I quickly realised that the main issue revolves around the humans involved and not the products itself.  For example: An elderly representative from the media company admitted to a lack of self-confidence in situations  when she has to present digital magazines to young agency representatives, because she perceives them as  being more knowledgeable regarding digitalisation - even though she feels confident about her knowledge of the  product and is convinced by the quality of it and its possible positive impact. This results - from her point of view -  in a worse presentation of the product, which leads to the agency doubting the quality of the product.     I chose this design of the activity, because I wanted both sides to put themselves in the role of the other organisa- tion, reflect on their strengths and weaknesses and eventually create empathy and a deeper understanding of the  other organisation’s needs and demands. After the workshop, I digitized the different pillars and categories of the  Mind Map and highlighted the statements and aspects that I perceived as the most valuable and useful for the idea  generation phase.       INSIGHT    The most interesting insight I have gained from applying the tool of Mind Mapping to this specific challenge is that  the most valuable aspects were not shared in written form (slips of paper / notes from the assessment phase) but  in verbal form, when I asked the participating stakeholders to explain their notes and the reason why they posi- tioned them at a specific spot on the Mind Map. In this process of reflecting and elaborating, the participants were  more precise and even more open and honest in regard to what they originally had wanted to communicate. My  interpretation of this insight is that - by this time of the workshop - the stakeholders felt more comfortable in this  surrounding and had internalised the fact that this process might really help them rather than solely expose per- sonal as well as company related issues and problems.      APPROACH    Since I discovered the most valuable insights for the following idea generation phase through the stakeholders’  verbal elaboration on their notes, next time I would chose a design thinking activity which is less focused on putting  thoughts into written words but more about (spontaneous) verbal explanations by the participants. I would like to  use the tool of visualization and make the stakeholders put together a collage, which they then have to present to  the other participants, as I would expect more openness and honesty through drawing or putting together a collage  rather than writing.


DESIGN THINKING │ REFLECTION │ MIND MAPPING CHALLENGE The challenge I chose to apply my now gained knowledge about design thinking to is mainly based around the topic of internal perception versus external perception . In further detail : The challenge is about a big media com- pany , which manages a huge portfolio of magazines , digital products and media services . The company is mostly known for its big selection of print magazines , which makes it the country ’s leading magazine publishing house . A large proportion of the revenues are generated through advertisements and advertorials , which are acquired di- rectly by companies or , most often the case , their representative agencies . Because of the strongly decreasing importance of print magazines , the company is more and more - but at a slow pace - shifting its focus towards digital magazines . Within the company , the top management as well as the staff perceive themselves and their work as innovative . Outside the company : Increasingly less so . This is mostly obvious in meetings with agencies , who usually have a much younger , digitally savvy staff which grew up with digital magazines rather than print magazines . The problem : The agencies perceive the company as not in touch with the latest digital trends , the company ( from the agencies ’ point of view ) lacks modern - day credibility and the company and agencies less and less connect at eye level . Even though - and this is important - the company manages a big and very successful portfolio of digital magazines and could easily cater for the agencies ’ needs . SELECTION The tool I used for my design thinking process to approach the above - mentioned challenge was the tool of Mind Mapping . I chose to use Mind Mapping , because the assessment or exploration phase of the process ( with what if ? being the leading question ) resulted in a large quantity of data , which as a consequence needed to be grouped ( mind mapped ) to look for patterns and insights . Those patterns and insights - first and foremost the dominant and promising ones - formed the basis respectively created the criteria for the idea generation phase ( with what if ? being the leading question ) . APPLICATION To address my challenge , I initiated a workshop with representatives of both the media company and an agency . I carefully selected the participants according to varying socio - demographic details and across all hierarchy levels . For the activity , I divided all the agency representatives as well as all the representatives of the media company into two groups each , which resulted in four groups of three people each . I then told both groups of agency repre- sentatives to put themselves in the role of the media company and - accordingly - both groups of the media com- pany ’s representatives to put themselves in the role of the agency . Two groups ( one in the role of the media company , one in the role of the agency ) I then told that they should discuss how the embodied organisation possibly perceives itself internally , whereas the other two groups ( one in the role of the media company , one in the role of the agency ) should discuss how the embodied organisation is possibly perceived by external stakeholders . I gave those four groups about 20 minutes to discuss and note their different thoughts and ideas on slips of paper . The next task was to assemble the Mind Map , for which I had clustered a big board into two sections : Strengths and Weaknesses . Beyond that , I deliberately not gave the participants any advice or recommendation on how to cluster the Mind Map . With this , I wanted to allow this very diverse group of stakeholders to learn from each other in the process of defining the scope of the Mind Map , the key elements as well as the relationships between the individual elements . Throughout this process , I acted as a moderator by - for example - asking them to further elaborate on their thoughts , triggering discussions or sharing thought - provoking impulses . While clustering the Mind Map together and listening to the thoughts and statements generated in the assessment process , I quickly realised that the main issue revolves around the humans involved and not the products itself . For example : An elderly representative from the media company admitted to a lack of self - confidence in situations when she has to present digital magazines to young agency representatives , because she perceives them as being more knowledgeable regarding digitalisation - even though she feels confident about her knowledge of the product and is convinced by the quality of it and its possible positive impact . This results - from her point of view - in a worse presentation of the product , which leads to the agency doubting the quality of the product . I chose this design of the activity , because I wanted both sides to put themselves in the role of the other organisa- tion , reflect on their strengths and weaknesses and eventually create empathy and a deeper understanding of the other organisation ’s needs and demands . After the workshop , I digitized the different pillars and categories of the Mind Map and highlighted the statements and aspects that I perceived as the most valuable and useful for the idea generation phase . INSIGHT The most interesting insight I have gained from applying the tool of Mind Mapping to this specific challenge is that the most valuable aspects were not shared in written form ( slips of paper / notes from the assessment phase ) but in verbal form , when I asked the participating stakeholders to explain their notes and the reason why they posi- tioned them at a specific spot on the Mind Map . In this process of reflecting and elaborating , the participants were more precise and even more open and honest in regard to what they originally had wanted to communicate . My interpretation of this insight is that - by this time of the workshop - the stakeholders felt more comfortable in this surrounding and had internalised the fact that this process might really help them rather than solely expose per- sonal as well as company related issues and problems . APPROACH Since I discovered the most valuable insights for the following idea generation phase through the stakeholders ’ verbal elaboration on their notes , next time I would chose a design thinking activity which is less focused on putting thoughts into written words but more about ( spontaneous ) verbal explanations by the participants . I would like to use the tool of visualization and make the stakeholders put together a collage , which they then have to present to the other participants , as I would expect more openness and honesty through drawing or putting together a collage rather than writing .