Design Thinking for Innovation – Final Assignment   Antonio Juarez

Challenge:

I work for a large consulting firm in the IT services space. Specifically, I advise large corporations  (primarily marketing departments) how to better engage customers and prospects to realize more value  from these relationships. Recently, a global auto rental company with whom our firm has a deep  relationship posed the question to me and my team of how to increase adoption of the firm’s new  mobile application. They had spent a bunch of money building and launching a new mobile application  and were far behind in meeting the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) with which they had justified the  original investment. Senior management was unhappy.

To start, my team and I took initial issue with the premise of the initial ask and coordinated a workshop  to reframe the question. Rather than solving the “increase adoption of the mobile app” question, we  drilled to the root issue or key business problem being “how do we leverage the mobile channel to  better engage with our renters.” This was an important step in framing the challenge – it removed a  specific solutioning bias pertaining to application adoption as well as limited the scope of our inquiry to  renters versus prospects.

Once we aligned on a business problem, we completed a research phase that included analytical data  from the current app, segment & behavioral data from the relevant renter segment, constructed  journey maps to show the current state, did competitive research, etc. Additionally, we interviewed 20  users of the app, several customer service reps, etc. We presented these “as-is” findings back to the  business and scheduled a workshop as our next step with a focus being on engaging cross domain  stakeholders (business, IT, marketing, product) to collaborate on creating prioritized design guidelines as  a framework for our innovation process.

Selection:

We selected mindmapping as the key facilitation construct for the next step in our process and followed  a process similar to the yardsale example in the week 3 video. As a firm, our end state is typically a  technical engineering assignment of some sort that usually involves data, large corporate IT systems,  marketing operations, application development and support, etc. To solve this type of challenge  effectively, we felt it essential to engage stakeholders from across the enterprise (business, product,  customer svc, marketing, data, etc.) in order to both build consensus on a shared path forward as well as  have all relevant perspectives considered. I felt the mindmapping process would enable us to capture  inputs from multiple perspectives, accommodate both analytical, anecdotal, opinions, wishes, etc.in a  more open and fluid manner. Also, by producing a significant number of specific findings, wishes, and  other criteria from multiple sources and points of view, the mindmapping process would be helpful for  grouping  and creating relationships and  ultimately enabling our group to digest to a set of aligned  principles we could use to guide the subsequent ideation process.

Application:

Following the presentation of our internal and external research processes (mentioned in #1, above), we  posted the findings (large posters on the walls) and engaged the group to walk around and identify (via  Sticky notes) the most relevant take-aways that each participant was drawn to. As we reassembled and  presented each individual’s top 3, we then worked to cull out the duplicates and group these into logical  groupings. Having the stickies all posted on a whiteboard made it easy to move around into groups – we

Design Thinking for Innovation – Final Assignment   Antonio Juarez

also found the process very collaborative as participants explained their choices. From our group of 12  participants, we collected nearly 100 insights. The culling, grouping and de-duping exercise narrowed  the field down to about 30 insights that ranged from key usage metrics (e.g. last action on an ap before  leaving) to favorite features from unassociated mobile experiences (e.g. augmented reality feature on a  ski area ap). We had each participant then use small green and red stickers (3 of each color per  participant) to vote among the final 30 for the insights that resonated the most or were most relevant.

The output of this workshop was very successful in defining the design principles or guidelines we would  use for the next step in the process. Our groupings emerged about key customer attributes, touchpoints  in the customer journey best suited for mobile, and differentiating capabilities important to include.  Each grouping had 4-6 specifics mapped. We also started the process of connecting attributes between  groupings. It was a very well received session with a great result.

Application:

The original problem the customer came with (how to improve adoption of a new ap) that was reframed  into a business outcome-focused need (how to leverage mobile to improve the on-rental experience)  was a constant and collaborative discussion though the early stages of the engagement. Interestingly,  even during the mindmapping exercise, ahead of any solution ideation, etc, it became progressively  clear that while the new app was a nice application with some innovative capbilities, it really didn’t meet  the need of the users that it was intended to serve. As the group identified relevant touchpoints where a  mobile experience should be most effectively leveraged, the current app didn’t really address these.  Additionally, the behavioral attributes of the target segmnets and usage data didn’t align with the app  characteristics and the current users. As we finished the mindmapping process, the participants were  already clear that the problem was not an adoption issue, it was a problem of having an app that was  relevant to the customer.

Approach:

For where we were in the process mentioned above, mindmapping was a great tool and allowed a very  democratized way of gathering input from a diverse group of stakeholders. The group struggled a bit to  not jump to a solutioning mindset (or discounting some of the shared scenarios based on prior bias), but  in the end, it was successful.

Moving forward, I would continue to leverage a similar process, but might introduce the concept a bit  more abstractly to begin. I was thinking through the course of this assignment that doing a sample,  shorter mindmapping exercise on a hypothetical topic outside of the immediate business context as a  primer would get the group more prepared for the ‘main event.’ By using a sample exercise, we could  protect the continuity of the core exercise buy getting questions asked, direction given and establish a  comfort level with the process.


Design Thinking for Innovation – Final Assignment Antonio Juarez Challenge : I work for a large consulting firm in the IT services space . Specifically , I advise large corporations ( primarily marketing departments ) how to better engage customers and prospects to realize more value from these relationships . Recently , a global auto rental company with whom our firm has a deep relationship posed the question to me and my team of how to increase adoption of the firm ’s new mobile application . They had spent a bunch of money building and launching a new mobile application and were far behind in meeting the Key Performance Indicators ( KPIs ) with which they had justified the original investment . Senior management was unhappy . To start , my team and I took initial issue with the premise of the initial ask and coordinated a workshop to reframe the question . Rather than solving the “ increase adoption of the mobile app ” question , we drilled to the root issue or key business problem being “ how do we leverage the mobile channel to better engage with our renters . ” This was an important step in framing the challenge – it removed a specific solutioning bias pertaining to application adoption as well as limited the scope of our inquiry to renters versus prospects . Once we aligned on a business problem , we completed a research phase that included analytical data from the current app , segment & behavioral data from the relevant renter segment , constructed journey maps to show the current state , did competitive research , etc . Additionally , we interviewed 20 users of the app , several customer service reps , etc . We presented these “ as - is ” findings back to the business and scheduled a workshop as our next step with a focus being on engaging cross domain stakeholders ( business , IT , marketing , product ) to collaborate on creating prioritized design guidelines as a framework for our innovation process . Selection : We selected mindmapping as the key facilitation construct for the next step in our process and followed a process similar to the yardsale example in the week 3 video . As a firm , our end state is typically a technical engineering assignment of some sort that usually involves data , large corporate IT systems , marketing operations , application development and support , etc . To solve this type of challenge effectively , we felt it essential to engage stakeholders from across the enterprise ( business , product , customer svc , marketing , data , etc . ) in order to both build consensus on a shared path forward as well as have all relevant perspectives considered . I felt the mindmapping process would enable us to capture inputs from multiple perspectives , accommodate both analytical , anecdotal , opinions , wishes , etc.in a more open and fluid manner . Also , by producing a significant number of specific findings , wishes , and other criteria from multiple sources and points of view , the mindmapping process would be helpful for grouping and creating relationships and ultimately enabling our group to digest to a set of aligned principles we could use to guide the subsequent ideation process . Application : Following the presentation of our internal and external research processes ( mentioned in # 1 , above ) , we posted the findings ( large posters on the walls ) and engaged the group to walk around and identify ( via Sticky notes ) the most relevant take - aways that each participant was drawn to . As we reassembled and presented each individual ’s top 3 , we then worked to cull out the duplicates and group these into logical groupings . Having the stickies all posted on a whiteboard made it easy to move around into groups – we Design Thinking for Innovation – Final Assignment Antonio Juarez also found the process very collaborative as participants explained their choices . From our group of 12 participants , we collected nearly 100 insights . The culling , grouping and de - duping exercise narrowed the field down to about 30 insights that ranged from key usage metrics ( e.g. last action on an ap before leaving ) to favorite features from unassociated mobile experiences ( e.g. augmented reality feature on a ski area ap ) . We had each participant then use small green and red stickers ( 3 of each color per participant ) to vote among the final 30 for the insights that resonated the most or were most relevant . The output of this workshop was very successful in defining the design principles or guidelines we would use for the next step in the process . Our groupings emerged about key customer attributes , touchpoints in the customer journey best suited for mobile , and differentiating capabilities important to include . Each grouping had 4 - 6 specifics mapped . We also started the process of connecting attributes between groupings . It was a very well received session with a great result . Application : The original problem the customer came with ( how to improve adoption of a new ap ) that was reframed into a business outcome - focused need ( how to leverage mobile to improve the on - rental experience ) was a constant and collaborative discussion though the early stages of the engagement . Interestingly , even during the mindmapping exercise , ahead of any solution ideation , etc , it became progressively clear that while the new app was a nice application with some innovative capbilities , it really did n’t meet the need of the users that it was intended to serve . As the group identified relevant touchpoints where a mobile experience should be most effectively leveraged , the current app did n’t really address these . Additionally , the behavioral attributes of the target segmnets and usage data did n’t align with the app characteristics and the current users . As we finished the mindmapping process , the participants were already clear that the problem was not an adoption issue , it was a problem of having an app that was relevant to the customer . Approach : For where we were in the process mentioned above , mindmapping was a great tool and allowed a very democratized way of gathering input from a diverse group of stakeholders . The group struggled a bit to not jump to a solutioning mindset ( or discounting some of the shared scenarios based on prior bias ) , but in the end , it was successful . Moving forward , I would continue to leverage a similar process , but might introduce the concept a bit more abstractly to begin . I was thinking through the course of this assignment that doing a sample , shorter mindmapping exercise on a hypothetical topic outside of the immediate business context as a primer would get the group more prepared for the ‘ main event . ’ By using a sample exercise , we could protect the continuity of the core exercise buy getting questions asked , direction given and establish a comfort level with the process .