DESIGN THINKING FOR INNOVATION

FINAL ASSIGNMENT: REFLECTION

CHALLENGE    I work for a large nonprofit, and my team’s job is to research prospects for potential fundraising and/or  partnership opportunities. These prospects can include foundations, businesses, professional  associations, individuals, and many other entities. In the course of this work we evaluate the prospects  and their interests, histories, relationships, their inclination to give, and their philanthropic capacity. We  do this simply to help ensure that our colleagues doing the front-line fundraising are focusing their  efforts on working with the right donors at the right time and for the right initiative.    While the underlying premise of our research is the same regardless of the request for research we’ve  received, each profile (the research report we compile and provide to the requestor) is unique based on  the requestor’s specific needs and on the specific prospect. We recently faced a fairly common  challenge, but we took advantage of the challenge to practice some design thinking. The challenge was  that a particular fundraiser wanted to create individualized stewardship plans for a test market of 22  potential donors that had been identified in her geographic area and so needed brief, “mini” profiles  (instead of the more lengthy, “full” profiles we typically provide) on each donor, and she needed them in  a very short amount of time.     SELECTION    To take advantage of this challenge and practice some design thinking, our team decided to use the  learning launch tool. While ideally we would have had the time to do other design thinking activities to  more fully understand the current situation and generate some other innovative ideas beforehand, we  had a very short time line and needed to be able to quickly develop and test ideas for a more concise  “prototype” profile, which is precisely what the leaning launch tool allows.    APPLICATION    For the first launch, my team submitted profiles for 6 of the fundraiser’s prospects following somewhat  standard modifications we’d used before to create more concise profiles; this deliverable was fairly  familiar to the fundraiser. For the second launch—the next 3 profiles—we submitted modified profiles  that reduced some redundancies of information (information she had access to elsewhere) and that  streamlined the process for our team, making these 3 profiles truly brief and “mini.” At this point, and  before we proceeded with the remaining 13 profiles, we solicited specific feedback from the fundraiser,  asking her to compare the two types of profiles she received, and for her to tell us what works and what  doesn’t, as well as any other thoughts she had on these approaches.    INSIGHT    Feedback from the fundraiser indicated that she preferred the format of the first 6 profiles, those that  were more familiar yet still more concise than our typical profile, over the 3 brief, “mini” profiles we had  created for her. The biggest insight relevant to the deliverables of this particular challenge was that our  second learning launch (the 3 “mini” profiles), which we felt was pretty innovative and sleek (and had

the added benefit of saving us time), was simply not what our client wanted. It illuminated the fact that  what the fundraiser meant by “brief, mini profiles” was not exactly how our team understood it. The  biggest insight relevant to our future challenges was that we really to dedicate more time and energy to  understanding our clients—the fundraisers we support—to make sure we are meeting their needs for  any and all requests they may have.    APPROACH    This challenge and our opportunity to try out some learning launches encouraged our team to begin  more rigorously and strategically applying other design thinking techniques to better understand our  internal clients and ensure that our products are meeting their needs. We have since designed a survey  that will be shared soon with these colleagues so we can begin this process. Once we have reviewed the  survey results, we will also hold focus groups with smaller groups of 3-4 fundraisers at a time to have  them walk us through their work and when and why they request research for their efforts, and then we  will use the information gleaned from these exercises to try additional learning launches. We hope that,  through the modifications we make to our profiles (our “products”) in this process, we will more fully  satisfy the needs of the fundraisers and so better complement and inform their efforts.


DESIGN THINKING FOR INNOVATION FINAL ASSIGNMENT : REFLECTION CHALLENGE I work for a large nonprofit , and my team ’s job is to research prospects for potential fundraising and/or partnership opportunities . These prospects can include foundations , businesses , professional associations , individuals , and many other entities . In the course of this work we evaluate the prospects and their interests , histories , relationships , their inclination to give , and their philanthropic capacity . We do this simply to help ensure that our colleagues doing the front - line fundraising are focusing their efforts on working with the right donors at the right time and for the right initiative . While the underlying premise of our research is the same regardless of the request for research we ’ve received , each profile ( the research report we compile and provide to the requestor ) is unique based on the requestor ’s specific needs and on the specific prospect . We recently faced a fairly common challenge , but we took advantage of the challenge to practice some design thinking . The challenge was that a particular fundraiser wanted to create individualized stewardship plans for a test market of 22 potential donors that had been identified in her geographic area and so needed brief , “ mini ” profiles ( instead of the more lengthy , “ full ” profiles we typically provide ) on each donor , and she needed them in a very short amount of time . SELECTION To take advantage of this challenge and practice some design thinking , our team decided to use the learning launch tool . While ideally we would have had the time to do other design thinking activities to more fully understand the current situation and generate some other innovative ideas beforehand , we had a very short time line and needed to be able to quickly develop and test ideas for a more concise “ prototype ” profile , which is precisely what the leaning launch tool allows . APPLICATION For the first launch , my team submitted profiles for 6 of the fundraiser ’s prospects following somewhat standard modifications we ’d used before to create more concise profiles ; this deliverable was fairly familiar to the fundraiser . For the second launch — the next 3 profiles — we submitted modified profiles that reduced some redundancies of information ( information she had access to elsewhere ) and that streamlined the process for our team , making these 3 profiles truly brief and “ mini . ” At this point , and before we proceeded with the remaining 13 profiles , we solicited specific feedback from the fundraiser , asking her to compare the two types of profiles she received , and for her to tell us what works and what does n’t , as well as any other thoughts she had on these approaches . INSIGHT Feedback from the fundraiser indicated that she preferred the format of the first 6 profiles , those that were more familiar yet still more concise than our typical profile , over the 3 brief , “ mini ” profiles we had created for her . The biggest insight relevant to the deliverables of this particular challenge was that our second learning launch ( the 3 “ mini ” profiles ) , which we felt was pretty innovative and sleek ( and had the added benefit of saving us time ) , was simply not what our client wanted . It illuminated the fact that what the fundraiser meant by “ brief , mini profiles ” was not exactly how our team understood it . The biggest insight relevant to our future challenges was that we really to dedicate more time and energy to understanding our clients — the fundraisers we support — to make sure we are meeting their needs for any and all requests they may have . APPROACH This challenge and our opportunity to try out some learning launches encouraged our team to begin more rigorously and strategically applying other design thinking techniques to better understand our internal clients and ensure that our products are meeting their needs . We have since designed a survey that will be shared soon with these colleagues so we can begin this process . Once we have reviewed the survey results , we will also hold focus groups with smaller groups of 3 - 4 fundraisers at a time to have them walk us through their work and when and why they request research for their efforts , and then we will use the information gleaned from these exercises to try additional learning launches . We hope that , through the modifications we make to our profiles ( our “ products ” ) in this process , we will more fully satisfy the needs of the fundraisers and so better complement and inform their efforts .