COURSERA:  DESIGN THINKING FOR INNOVATION   Instructor:   Sue Abdeldayem, UVa

Final Assignment: REFLECTION (05/26/20)     Student:  Karina Starks, Pearl Academy

Project Title Garden State Studio/MANVILLE   (An academic architecture studio)

PHASES:    Phase 1/Digging, Phase II/Planting, Phase III/Growing, Phase IV/Harvesting

TOOL:   Mind Mapping

Challenge     As the professor in an Architecture School Studio, I taught a complex project on a 10 acre site  with environmental, social, regulatory and technical constraints. It was a graduate studio of  students with a mix of qualifications to tackle such a complex design problem.  The academic  setting was seen by county officials as a way to bridge the distrust between the stakeholders  (developer, the local citizens, and the adjacent business owners).  My largest challenge became  the moment in the process after the ‘What is’ research (Phase I/Digging) into the ‘What if’  (Phase III/Growing) phase of a Design Thinking process.  The challenge was to establish the  Design Criteria for our studio that would also respond to the ‘minds’ of our stakeholders and  create teams for the next phase of work.     How would we organize individuals into teams that would take the leap between research, field  work, site analysis into Design Ideas?  We needed to establish Design Criteria for the project but  also find a theme unique to each team. Designers are good at IDEA GENERATION and  overcoming constraints but needed the discipline to work with the stakeholder’s criteria within  thematically coherent creative teams.  DESIGN CRITERIA needed to engage Stakeholders into  the process.  The success of the teams would depend upon how invested they each would be in  the teamwork thereby directly affecting  the quality of the output. The eventual ‘output’  needed to encourage discussions that could increase trust among stakeholders in a previously  contentious situation.  The Mind mapping tool, we hoped, would establish common Design  Criteria and organize teams from the research & displayed visualization each student has  created.  Teams would be identified by a possible Strategy for the site, a naming process to  verbalize the themes in student visualizations, and a word to identify each team as distinct  while pursuing common Design Criteria.    Application    The tool was applied to the challenge of creating Design Criteria and teams by having a pin-up  display on a wall that all could see. Each student was asked to bring  minimum of 3 criteria for  the site strategy that day along with their ‘What is’ research (diagrams, data, photos, models,  collages). Each student spent time with the visuals before discussing each other’s work.  The  group discussed potential design criteria in each individual’s concepts and tried to find a  thematic direction that best represented the mind of that student.  We then had a live  diagramming session on the wall where we connected (or bundled) individual work into  compatible (yet complimentary) themes.  (The outliers were not eliminated but would  hopefully contribute critically to the later work.)  Ultimately, by the end of the day, we would

need 3 groups of 4 students each.  Those 3 groups would be operating with the same basic  Design Criteria, but each have a unique theme according to our Mind Mapping process. We  wanted the tool to enable us to not only form, but to name each group, thereby giving it an  identity and establishing the Design Criteria for their team. The design groups were identified as   ‘Fibers’, Ribbon’, & ‘Stitch’.    Insight    The tool was a great success in finding patterns and insights for generating Design Criteria and  the formation of teams.  The process of forming teams is always messy, yet instead of grouping  similar students together, (or allowing personal bias to interfere, or let them group according to  previous friendships), by applying this tool to the challenge, each team turned out to be  beneficially diverse. Individual weaknesses allowed complementary strengths to emerge and all  contributed to the teamwork.  Individual differences were overcome by the strength of a strong  identity for each TEAM formed by the Mind Mapping process (visible to all and contributed by  all).  Having a coherent name and concept for each team, not only helped focus the work, but  allowed for the proper MINDSET without limiting creativity and individual ideas. Having a team  identity by conceptual site strategy, also helped prepare the stakeholders MINDSET during  presentations. Since the stakeholders would attend a series of presentations during the course  of the semester, this allowed them to quickly plug into each strategy (all pursuing the  established DESIGN CRITERIA), without locking into any one of them prematurely.    Approach    One stakeholder who needed to embrace this process, was the DEVELOPER, who had the most  power to implement this project (funds, business, ownership etc.).  We, as designers, are  comfortable with the Design Thinking process BUT was the developer interested in Business  Innovation? Only concerned with the bottom line? Interested in the social implications and the  people who live and work there?  We had the opportunity to demonstrate Business Innovation  through DESIGN without any cost to the Developer since we were an academic institution.  The  other key stakeholder was the MUNICIPALITY who would have to adjust existing zoning  regulations to approve an innovative multi-use development that offered sustainable features  beneficial to adjacent neighborhoods.  They seemed willing to do that if the Developer would  invest in an innovative design solution.    Our work allowed the stakeholders to pursue innovation for growth and re-development of  their EPA ‘Super fund’ site in the middle of their post-industrial town. Regarding Design  Thinking tools, this was the right one at the right time, but we compressed the MIND MAPPING  tool into one day. What we would do differently next time would be to stretch the use of the  tool to one week in order to better understand the stakeholders needs.  Early on, we  successfully utilized the VISUALIZATION tool, but may have under-invested in the  STORYTELLING tool before using the MIND MAPPING tool.  We also needed more time for the  final phase & ‘Learning Launch’ tool.  (Phase IV/‘Harvesting’ : Revised Site Strategies and Data  Spreadsheet).  Because an academic semester has its own time frame that is not always

compatible with the stakeholder time frames, this process would have benefited from more  time or another semester to continue the work.      Because the academic institution did not provide any funding for the research or publication,  nor did it recognize the value of a public research institution supporting Community Design,  next time we would look for funding elsewhere to create a website so that our process and the  transferable knowledge could be shared.  Happily, I had that opportunity several years later and  lead a project, partly funded by a grant, that did allow for the production of a website that  demonstrates our Design Thinking process in the context of a Garden State Studio.


COURSERA : DESIGN THINKING FOR INNOVATION Instructor : Sue Abdeldayem , UVa Final Assignment : REFLECTION ( 05/26/20 ) Student : Karina Starks , Pearl Academy Project Title Garden State Studio / MANVILLE ( An academic architecture studio ) PHASES : Phase 1 / Digging , Phase II / Planting , Phase III / Growing , Phase IV / Harvesting TOOL : Mind Mapping Challenge As the professor in an Architecture School Studio , I taught a complex project on a 10 acre site with environmental , social , regulatory and technical constraints . It was a graduate studio of students with a mix of qualifications to tackle such a complex design problem . The academic setting was seen by county officials as a way to bridge the distrust between the stakeholders ( developer , the local citizens , and the adjacent business owners ) . My largest challenge became the moment in the process after the ‘ What is ’ research ( Phase I / Digging ) into the ‘ What if ’ ( Phase III / Growing ) phase of a Design Thinking process . The challenge was to establish the Design Criteria for our studio that would also respond to the ‘ minds ’ of our stakeholders and create teams for the next phase of work . How would we organize individuals into teams that would take the leap between research , field work , site analysis into Design Ideas ? We needed to establish Design Criteria for the project but also find a theme unique to each team . Designers are good at IDEA GENERATION and overcoming constraints but needed the discipline to work with the stakeholder ’s criteria within thematically coherent creative teams . DESIGN CRITERIA needed to engage Stakeholders into the process . The success of the teams would depend upon how invested they each would be in the teamwork thereby directly affecting the quality of the output . The eventual ‘ output ’ needed to encourage discussions that could increase trust among stakeholders in a previously contentious situation . The Mind mapping tool , we hoped , would establish common Design Criteria and organize teams from the research & displayed visualization each student has created . Teams would be identified by a possible Strategy for the site , a naming process to verbalize the themes in student visualizations , and a word to identify each team as distinct while pursuing common Design Criteria . Application The tool was applied to the challenge of creating Design Criteria and teams by having a pin - up display on a wall that all could see . Each student was asked to bring minimum of 3 criteria for the site strategy that day along with their ‘ What is ’ research ( diagrams , data , photos , models , collages ) . Each student spent time with the visuals before discussing each other ’s work . The group discussed potential design criteria in each individual ’s concepts and tried to find a thematic direction that best represented the mind of that student . We then had a live diagramming session on the wall where we connected ( or bundled ) individual work into compatible ( yet complimentary ) themes . ( The outliers were not eliminated but would hopefully contribute critically to the later work . ) Ultimately , by the end of the day , we would need 3 groups of 4 students each . Those 3 groups would be operating with the same basic Design Criteria , but each have a unique theme according to our Mind Mapping process . We wanted the tool to enable us to not only form , but to name each group , thereby giving it an identity and establishing the Design Criteria for their team . The design groups were identified as ‘ Fibers ’ , Ribbon ’ , & ‘ Stitch ’ . Insight The tool was a great success in finding patterns and insights for generating Design Criteria and the formation of teams . The process of forming teams is always messy , yet instead of grouping similar students together , ( or allowing personal bias to interfere , or let them group according to previous friendships ) , by applying this tool to the challenge , each team turned out to be beneficially diverse . Individual weaknesses allowed complementary strengths to emerge and all contributed to the teamwork . Individual differences were overcome by the strength of a strong identity for each TEAM formed by the Mind Mapping process ( visible to all and contributed by all ) . Having a coherent name and concept for each team , not only helped focus the work , but allowed for the proper MINDSET without limiting creativity and individual ideas . Having a team identity by conceptual site strategy , also helped prepare the stakeholders MINDSET during presentations . Since the stakeholders would attend a series of presentations during the course of the semester , this allowed them to quickly plug into each strategy ( all pursuing the established DESIGN CRITERIA ) , without locking into any one of them prematurely . Approach One stakeholder who needed to embrace this process , was the DEVELOPER , who had the most power to implement this project ( funds , business , ownership etc . ) . We , as designers , are comfortable with the Design Thinking process BUT was the developer interested in Business Innovation ? Only concerned with the bottom line ? Interested in the social implications and the people who live and work there ? We had the opportunity to demonstrate Business Innovation through DESIGN without any cost to the Developer since we were an academic institution . The other key stakeholder was the MUNICIPALITY who would have to adjust existing zoning regulations to approve an innovative multi - use development that offered sustainable features beneficial to adjacent neighborhoods . They seemed willing to do that if the Developer would invest in an innovative design solution . Our work allowed the stakeholders to pursue innovation for growth and re - development of their EPA ‘ Super fund ’ site in the middle of their post - industrial town . Regarding Design Thinking tools , this was the right one at the right time , but we compressed the MIND MAPPING tool into one day . What we would do differently next time would be to stretch the use of the tool to one week in order to better understand the stakeholders needs . Early on , we successfully utilized the VISUALIZATION tool , but may have under - invested in the STORYTELLING tool before using the MIND MAPPING tool . We also needed more time for the final phase & ‘ Learning Launch ’ tool . ( Phase IV/‘Harvesting ’ : Revised Site Strategies and Data Spreadsheet ) . Because an academic semester has its own time frame that is not always compatible with the stakeholder time frames , this process would have benefited from more time or another semester to continue the work . Because the academic institution did not provide any funding for the research or publication , nor did it recognize the value of a public research institution supporting Community Design , next time we would look for funding elsewhere to create a website so that our process and the transferable knowledge could be shared . Happily , I had that opportunity several years later and lead a project , partly funded by a grant , that did allow for the production of a website that demonstrates our Design Thinking process in the context of a Garden State Studio .