Mind Mapping to Improve Digital Product Design and Development

1.Challenge: Describe your challenge, including all relevant information.

I was working with a small organization to develop a digital design repository and knowledge  sharing solution. This solution was intended to support the development of digital products  through the sharing of design and related information across staff involved with designing and  building such products. The end-users of this solution would comprise the product  development team and key stakeholders. The solution itself was intended to integrate, replace  or enhance current information systems. In trying to understand customer needs and priorities  across a wide range of end-users with different backgrounds, I designed and conducted a  series of custom workshops to obtain source information from end users. The findings from  these workshops were used to develop appropriate customer journey maps. The workshops  spanned over three months, involved more than thirty staff from across the organization and  resulted in the development of over thirteen journey maps for the same number of distinct  personas. Data and information gathered in these workshops resulted in a summarized report  that spanned over a hundred pages. In order for the development of the solution to move  forward, end users, key stakeholders and sponsors needed to have a good understanding of  the current situation to inform design goals.  However, I found it challenging to analyze the  information, develop a design hypothesis and present key findings and recommendations in a  cohesive and understandable manner. This became even more of a challenge when I found  that I was given 20 minutes to present my findings and another 40 mins for discussion. The fact  the team came from different professional backgrounds didn’t make things easier. I needed a  tool that would enable me to collapse my findings that could be quickly and easily understood  by a range of people with different perspectives.

2.Selection: In your own words, briefly describe the tool you selected (e.g., what it is and  why you selected it for your challenge --including any appropriate video lecture references).

Mind Mapping was the tool I selected to solve the problem This tool provided me with an  easy-to-use and intuitive means of sorting the information and data I had obtained earlier. It  also facilitated analysis and pattern identification different areas and allowed me to visually  indicate relationships between different findings. For example, one of the findings was that  there was no standardized way of managing risk which dovetailed with the fact that product  development teams were utilizing different methodologies to build digital products. Another  consideration was that as it was visual tool, it would provide an impactful, cohesive and  interesting graphic to present information and document links between related areas. It also  allowed a degree of creativity in visual presentation–allowing it to appeal and engage with  abroad range of people-and would allow people to interact with the information.

3.Application: Describe how you applied the tool you selected to your challenge (e.g., what  you did and how the tool was applied effectively or ineffectively).

I approached the usage of the mind-map from the perspective of using it to provide an  overview of my hypotheses developed from the created customer journey maps as well as the  ancillary information and data captured during the workshops. Viewers of the road-map (aka  the senior management team) were expected to challenge or confirm the findings or to add  more insights from their perspective –the mind map was also expected to provide a structure  to capture this feedback–enabling contributions to add richness to the findings. The empirical  and qualitative information developed from the prior customer journey mapping workshops – including the customer journey maps themselves was reviewed and analyzed to develop  hypothesis about end-users and their needs. Through an iterative analysis-synthesis process  with the information on hand, the need for the solution was reframed as a top line business  requirement: “there is a need for effective information and knowledge sharing to support

digital product development”. This requirement formed the root node of the mind map. The  map was prepared in advance by building the structure key findings categories that directly  followed from the root node. My analysis led me to organized results into the categories of  organization. People, process and tools. These were subsequently developed further –for  example, organization got broken down into sub-categories that included “recognition” and  “culture”. In preparing for the presentation, I used one copy as an overview for my power  point deck. With some creative adaptation, I also printed a hard copy of the map to fit one wall  of the meeting venue. This was done by splitting the mind map graphic into A3 sheets and  reassembling these later. I also “enhanced “this version by sourcing for and manually sticking  appropriate photos and graphics to the sheet to make it as visually captivating as possible. At  the actual presentation, I presented my findings using the mind-map to provide an overview.  The findings were positioned as a hypothesis to structure thinking. While I used the power  point version of the mind map to provide an overview of the findings. However, at all times,  the large hardcopy of the mind map was always on display at the adjacent wall –enabling the  audience to see where they were in the ‘big picture’ while I ran through details on my  projected power point deck.

4.Insight: Describe the insight you gained from applying the tool you selected to your  challenge (e.g., how an insight affected your thinking about the challenge and about design  thinking more broadly).

The Mind Map is an intuitive representation of a problem space and enabled me to visualize  and understand the linkages and relationships across and between nodes (aka “ideas” and  “concepts”) and later present these to my stakeholders.  For example, in analyzing findings  from my workshop findings, lack of team cohesion and stability presented itself as a repeating  theme. I was subsequently able to link this symptom to a resourcing model (documented  another node) of a shared expertise pool as a hypothesis for discussion with management  stakeholders.  For example, UX designers got shared across multiple projects depending on  their availability. Due to this, product development teams did not work with the same UX  designers on a consistent basis and follow through on previous UX findings was difficult. In  addition, it was difficult for UX designers to build depth of expertise for a particular customer  segment. Supported by the Mind Map, validation of this hypothesis was performed by  stepping through the journey map developed earlier and talking with “customers”. One  unexpected benefit of using Mind Maps was that as they are intuitive, visual representations,  they enabled management stakeholders to interact and come to their own conclusions with  little guidance.

5.Approach: Describe what you might do differently next time - applying the same tool you  selected or a different one - and the reason(s) why.

The Mind Map is an excellent tool to present and think about a problem space, it does not  necessarily provide much traction in getting stakeholders to think about actions needed or to  facilitate ownership. It’s a good tool for thinking and seeking consensus about a problem space  but is not particularly action orientated. What I would do differently is to add an Impact  Mapping session with key stakeholders to facilitate thinking and alignment about practical  actions to be taken. Impact Mapping is a simple strategic planning method that is based on  Mind Mapping techniques. The key difference between Mind Mapping and Impact Mapping is  that Impact Mapping is focused on a particular objective and its nodes are structured across  four different levels – Objective, Actors, Impact and Actions. It enables organizations to focus  on solving problems by clearly documenting assumptions and helps organizations align their  activities with overall objectives. I would also use the outputs from the previous Customer  Journey Mapping workshops, the validated Mind Maps and the subsequently developed  Impact Maps for a Town Hall session to communicate, seek feedback and align the wider  organization around what we were trying to achieve.


Mind Mapping to Improve Digital Product Design and Development 1.Challenge : Describe your challenge , including all relevant information . I was working with a small organization to develop a digital design repository and knowledge sharing solution . This solution was intended to support the development of digital products through the sharing of design and related information across staff involved with designing and building such products . The end - users of this solution would comprise the product development team and key stakeholders . The solution itself was intended to integrate , replace or enhance current information systems . In trying to understand customer needs and priorities across a wide range of end - users with different backgrounds , I designed and conducted a series of custom workshops to obtain source information from end users . The findings from these workshops were used to develop appropriate customer journey maps . The workshops spanned over three months , involved more than thirty staff from across the organization and resulted in the development of over thirteen journey maps for the same number of distinct personas . Data and information gathered in these workshops resulted in a summarized report that spanned over a hundred pages . In order for the development of the solution to move forward , end users , key stakeholders and sponsors needed to have a good understanding of the current situation to inform design goals . However , I found it challenging to analyze the information , develop a design hypothesis and present key findings and recommendations in a cohesive and understandable manner . This became even more of a challenge when I found that I was given 20 minutes to present my findings and another 40 mins for discussion . The fact the team came from different professional backgrounds did n’t make things easier . I needed a tool that would enable me to collapse my findings that could be quickly and easily understood by a range of people with different perspectives . 2.Selection : In your own words , briefly describe the tool you selected ( e.g. , what it is and why you selected it for your challenge --including any appropriate video lecture references ) . Mind Mapping was the tool I selected to solve the problem This tool provided me with an easy - to - use and intuitive means of sorting the information and data I had obtained earlier . It also facilitated analysis and pattern identification different areas and allowed me to visually indicate relationships between different findings . For example , one of the findings was that there was no standardized way of managing risk which dovetailed with the fact that product development teams were utilizing different methodologies to build digital products . Another consideration was that as it was visual tool , it would provide an impactful , cohesive and interesting graphic to present information and document links between related areas . It also allowed a degree of creativity in visual presentation – allowing it to appeal and engage with abroad range of people - and would allow people to interact with the information . 3.Application : Describe how you applied the tool you selected to your challenge ( e.g. , what you did and how the tool was applied effectively or ineffectively ) . I approached the usage of the mind - map from the perspective of using it to provide an overview of my hypotheses developed from the created customer journey maps as well as the ancillary information and data captured during the workshops . Viewers of the road - map ( aka the senior management team ) were expected to challenge or confirm the findings or to add more insights from their perspective – the mind map was also expected to provide a structure to capture this feedback – enabling contributions to add richness to the findings . The empirical and qualitative information developed from the prior customer journey mapping workshops – including the customer journey maps themselves was reviewed and analyzed to develop hypothesis about end - users and their needs . Through an iterative analysis - synthesis process with the information on hand , the need for the solution was reframed as a top line business requirement : “ there is a need for effective information and knowledge sharing to support digital product development ” . This requirement formed the root node of the mind map . The map was prepared in advance by building the structure key findings categories that directly followed from the root node . My analysis led me to organized results into the categories of organization . People , process and tools . These were subsequently developed further – for example , organization got broken down into sub - categories that included “ recognition ” and “ culture ” . In preparing for the presentation , I used one copy as an overview for my power point deck . With some creative adaptation , I also printed a hard copy of the map to fit one wall of the meeting venue . This was done by splitting the mind map graphic into A3 sheets and reassembling these later . I also “ enhanced “ this version by sourcing for and manually sticking appropriate photos and graphics to the sheet to make it as visually captivating as possible . At the actual presentation , I presented my findings using the mind - map to provide an overview . The findings were positioned as a hypothesis to structure thinking . While I used the power point version of the mind map to provide an overview of the findings . However , at all times , the large hardcopy of the mind map was always on display at the adjacent wall – enabling the audience to see where they were in the ‘ big picture ’ while I ran through details on my projected power point deck . 4.Insight : Describe the insight you gained from applying the tool you selected to your challenge ( e.g. , how an insight affected your thinking about the challenge and about design thinking more broadly ) . The Mind Map is an intuitive representation of a problem space and enabled me to visualize and understand the linkages and relationships across and between nodes ( aka “ ideas ” and “ concepts ” ) and later present these to my stakeholders . For example , in analyzing findings from my workshop findings , lack of team cohesion and stability presented itself as a repeating theme . I was subsequently able to link this symptom to a resourcing model ( documented another node ) of a shared expertise pool as a hypothesis for discussion with management stakeholders . For example , UX designers got shared across multiple projects depending on their availability . Due to this , product development teams did not work with the same UX designers on a consistent basis and follow through on previous UX findings was difficult . In addition , it was difficult for UX designers to build depth of expertise for a particular customer segment . Supported by the Mind Map , validation of this hypothesis was performed by stepping through the journey map developed earlier and talking with “ customers ” . One unexpected benefit of using Mind Maps was that as they are intuitive , visual representations , they enabled management stakeholders to interact and come to their own conclusions with little guidance . 5.Approach : Describe what you might do differently next time - applying the same tool you selected or a different one - and the reason(s ) why . The Mind Map is an excellent tool to present and think about a problem space , it does not necessarily provide much traction in getting stakeholders to think about actions needed or to facilitate ownership . It ’s a good tool for thinking and seeking consensus about a problem space but is not particularly action orientated . What I would do differently is to add an Impact Mapping session with key stakeholders to facilitate thinking and alignment about practical actions to be taken . Impact Mapping is a simple strategic planning method that is based on Mind Mapping techniques . The key difference between Mind Mapping and Impact Mapping is that Impact Mapping is focused on a particular objective and its nodes are structured across four different levels – Objective , Actors , Impact and Actions . It enables organizations to focus on solving problems by clearly documenting assumptions and helps organizations align their activities with overall objectives . I would also use the outputs from the previous Customer Journey Mapping workshops , the validated Mind Maps and the subsequently developed Impact Maps for a Town Hall session to communicate , seek feedback and align the wider organization around what we were trying to achieve .