How do I use design methods in social purpose work?
Design thinking (& doing) for�social innovation
Design thinking (& doing) for�social innovation
Design thinking (& doing) �for social innovation
Design thinking (& doing) for social innovation is a short course based on what we’ve learnt at TACSI about using design mindsets, methods and practices to create social purpose innovations - in systems, policy and services.
Over 5 modules (in 3 live sessions) you’ll explore the fundamentals of design thinking (and doing) with TACSI’s Chief Innovation Officer Chris Vanstone - drawing on his 25 years of design experience , key theory and TACSI case studies.
Listen to the first module podcast to hear what’s featured
At the end of the course you’ll be able to answer these questions:
The podcast - Hosted by Chris featuring thinkers, writers and practitioners from TACSI talking about their work. Each episode introduces a module.
3 x 1.5hr live zoom sessions with up to 15 of your fellow learners. Live sessions recap on the main learning points, provide a space for personal reflection and feature interactive learning experiences to deepen your understanding.
The course deck - Somewhere between a course book and a slide deck the course deck summarises the main learning points, frameworks, and visual references, complementing the podcast and live sessions.
Resource list - Recommended tools and frameworks.
What you’ll get
Read and watch list - A list of books, articles and videos to extend you design learning, with recommendations for each 3 modules.
TACSI Academy account - All conveniently served up on the TACSI Academy platform.
The modules
Covered in live session 3
3: What if?
Having good ideas, developing good concepts, making good choices.
We’ll share tools for:
4 What works?
Prototyping and beyond; developing improving, evaluating & scaling concepts
We’ll share tools for:
Covered in live session 1
1: What’s the course?
An introduction to the course and what’s required.
2: What project?
Assumptions, the innovation journey, power, participation, trust and when (not) to use design.
We’ll share tools for:
Covered in live session 2
2: What is?
Discovery work, design research methods, recruitment, consent, making sense of it all , shaping good opportunities and sharing them.
We’ll share tools for:
Note: We had to limit what we put in this very short course; we won’t cover participatory design methods or participant recruitment in the depth they deserve. We won’t cover project planning, team building, project management or how to create strong condition for innovation. They are explored in other TACSI training.
Get started
Design thinking for social innovation will run on the 26th of April and the 3rd and 6th of May.
You will receive your invite to the TACSI Academy by email
The time commitment is an hour of preparatory podcast listening prior to the 3x1.5 hour live zoom session
We wish to acknowledge the knowledge that has been shared by First Nations practitioners, writers and thinkers that is woven throughout this course.
This course will be hosted from unceded lands of the Kaurna People, and we pay respects to Kaurna elders past, present and future.
Design thinking (& doing) for�social innovation
Activity: What do you want to get out of this course?
Design thinking (& doing) for�social innovation
What’s the course?
What do you want to get
Alex | Lee | Luke | Max (Belinda) |
↓�What was most missing in co-design HCD engaging with end users Involving users in the design stage Prototyping (vs. High fidelity RCT) — adapting iteratively more than we normally do in Gov | ↓ When to used HCD?�Theoretical background to support / understand actions in the field | ↓ Creative interest (music, writing) — combine this with design Co-design vs Design Thinking When NOT appropriate to use Design Thinking | ↓ When to use ‘design’ and where to balance power in solutions. Maintaining trust and relationships that took a long time to build |
↓ Have used ‘Co-design elements’ but not really HCD. Seen HCD but not really been involved Behavioural Insights (Co-design working with stakeholders and reps — but not real users) What makes HCD unique? Co-des vs. HCD. How do we do this well?? Success factors. | ↓ Research methodologies� | ↓ Evaluation in infrastructure and international context Experience of int’l development context / playpumps-type examples Vietnam / nutrition. Participatory action research. Facilitating community voice and existing community solutions Kakadu 25 year project Lots of program design | ↓ Starting with principles of co-design — but challenge of relationships when ‘design done badly’ |
↓ When to use: Commitment to using the feedback from end users. Openness to follow thru. Participative Democracy Never had the license to genuinely build what people have design. | ↓ Regional driving policy and practice. Behavioural economics (speeding and safe driving practice) | ↓ Retention project | ↓ Application to safe driving project |
What’s the course?
What do you want to get
Tessa | Ash | Martin | Chris |
↓�How and when to use design in project management cycle — especially in Gov. How to convince decision-maker sof value of design | ↓ When to apply Behavioural insights? | ↓ More questions and questioning | ↓ Nudge / Behavioural insights |
↓ Policy design Disruptive design (learning from extremes) | ↓ Observations and reflections from our work in the project so far Background in experience design — for people who choose to live in regional areas, community owned/led elements | ↓ Gives | ↓ What good design thinking is — and what it’s not! Various design philosophies / processes / schools Evaluation as a tool. Eg Theory of Change Distinction between participatory methods |
↓ Health Directory Project | ↓ Examples of community led | ↓ Projects in focus | ↓ Projects in focus |
2 What project?
Live session 1
Assumptions�4 diamond design process�Power, participation & trust �When (not) to use design?
Design thinking (& doing) for�social innovation
Assumptions
Design thinking (& doing) for�social innovation
What project?
Types of assumptions
What project?
Testing assumptions
(Re)frame
assumptions
Test
assumptions
In the office
Out of the office
What project?
Mitigating risk
Easier, cheaper and less embarrassing to make changes
Harder, more expensive and more embarrassing to make changes
What project?
Creating knowledge
Unknowns
Knowns
Time >>>
Strengths-based
(Starting with what works)
Rights-based
(Giving voice to people)
Build what actually works
(Wanted and needed by consumers)
Faster horse counter?
Too sensitive? �Can we follow through?
Bringing in examples from around the world
Space and time
(To come up with ideas)
Why HCD?
4 diamond �design process
Design thinking (& doing) for�social innovation
What project?
4 diamond design process
What project?
What is?
What if?
What works?
Divergent
Thinking
Convergent
Thinking
Plan & team
Opportunities
Concepts
Solutions
Assumptions
What project?
Real design processes
What project?
Family by Family
Designing a breakthrough service concept
TACSI. Video
What project?
What is?
What if?
What works?
1 Year
Consultative process to decide focus of project
6 months of consultative design research to understand what families see as helpful help.
3 months of developing concepts with families
20 week live prototype running a co-produced service for with 20 families
What project?
Virtual village
Designing a new service based on adapting existing one
TACSI / South Australian Government / Uniting Communities Website
What project?/is?/if?
What works?
12 weeks
Highly accelerated due to strong understanding of existing situation, and a set of assumptions about solution based on an existing Family by Family service
12 week of prototyping co-produced service, concurrent with live service delivery. The current most critical assumptions prioritised for testing over six, two-week sprints
What project?
South Sudanese Minds
Designing a culturally specific response to young person mental health �in South Sudanese Australian communities in Melbourne.
TACSI / Victorian Government / coHealth / South Sudanese Australian young people Website
What �project?
What is?
What if?
What works?
2 Years
Careful project set up to ensure balance of power between community and institutions
Development of 1o potential responses, participatory governance group allocate money three ventures
12 months of live prototyping
Research led by young South Sudanese Australians
What project?
Mental health recommissioning
Developing a ‘principles of care’ and service guidance for commissioning through a participatory process with lived-experience majority design team.
TACSI / Brisbane South PHN Video
What �project?
What is?
What if?
What works?
6 months
Careful project set up to ensure balance of power between community and institutions
Development of philosophy of care and indicative service model to guide commissioning
No What works? phase.
This was left to providers commissioned to develop and deliver services.
Lived-experience design team members conduct research with their peers
What project?
Indigenous employment outcomes
Develop strategies to improve employment outcomes for Indigenous jobseekers�TACSI / Australian Government Video
What �project?
What is?
What if?
What works?
9 months
Creating conditions & capability for design thinking project
Development of strategies with key stakeholders, job service providers and Aboriginal job seekers. Including testing of concepts through paper based prototypes.
No What works? Stage, project ended with recommendations.
Design research
What project?
Stepping stones (design) process
Power, participation & trust
Design thinking (& doing) for�social innovation
What project?
Participatory spectrum
Informed
decision making
“To us”
Consultative �decision making
“For us without us”
Participatory �decision making
“Nothing about us without us”
Self-determined �decision making
“By us for us”
Fits easier with �business as usual
More likely to lead to incremental solutions based on existing assumptions.
Requires a bigger shift �in practice.
More likely to lead to different solutions based on shifted assumptions.
What project?
Participatory spectrum
| Informed | Consultative | Participatory | Self-determined |
Who decides | Professionals | Professionals including facilitator(s) experienced in running participatory processes | A majority community member/ lived experience group likely to also include practitioners, managers, commissioners or subject matter experts. Including facilitator(s) experienced in running participatory processes | A community member / lived-experience group. Supported, if required, to build their capabilities to organise and lead change. |
How | Draw on what they know about community members, evidence and practice, usually in meetings and documents. | Consult evidence, practitioners and community members – and then use what they learn to refine their assumptions about what’s best. | ||
Pros & cons | Fits easier with business as usual More likely to lead to incremental solutions based on existing assumptions. | | Requires a biggers shift in practice and power dynamics. More likely to lead to different solutions based on alternative assumptions. | |
IAP2 spectrum | Inform | Consult Involve | Collaborate | Empower |
What project?
Participatory responsibilities
Informed | Consultative | Participatory | Self-determined |
| | | Build conditions for �self–determination �eg capability or $s |
| | Use strategies to balance power | |
| Create brave and safe-enough spaces for participation | ||
Make a representative selection of participants | |||
Mitigate cognitive bias in decision making | |||
Choose the best-fit approach (what methods, what model of decision making?) | |||
In order to balance your power, you need to learn to dance with it
What project?
Dance with your power
Deb Carlon Victorian lived experience co-design lead, Centre for Mental Health Learning
Acknowledge it
Step-in
Step-out
What project?
Helpful & harmful projects
Scope/constraints are opaque.
Decision making not devolved, or devolved then retracted.
Lack of rigour in process or practice eg re-traumatisation.
Timeframes compromise process and relationships.
No ability / interest in changing what happens next, based on what’s learnt.
No lived experience involvement in next stage of work.
Pausing, reflecting and taking a better track.
Scope, constraints and decision making authority are clear and transparent.
Everyone it committed to learning.
Processes are guided by experienced practitioners.
Selected approach can be completed with rigour - within the time, money and capability available.
Harmful
Neutral
Helpful
When (not) to use design thinking
Design thinking (& doing) for�social innovation
What project?
Don’t use design thinking when…
Don’t use design thinking and doing when:
There are better dominant methodologies than design thinking and doing when…
That said, adding design thinking to that above would probably improve them.
What project?
Do use design thinking
What project?
Surprising uses of design thinking
Tool: Creating a brief for a design thinking project
Design thinking (& doing) for�social innovation
What project?
Design thinking project brief
The situation | People | Ambitions & constraints | About us |
↓�What’s the type of challenge? | ↓ What groups are most impacted by the problem/opportunity? | ↓ Ambition and constraints for solution | ↓ What is our ambition for power sharing in this project? |
↓ What do we know at this stage about the problem/situation and underlying causes? | ↓ What are the desired outcomes for each group?? | ↓ Ambition and constraints for this project | ↓ How do we make decisions now - what’s our experience with this proposed approach to power sharing? |
↓ What do we know at this stage about potential solutions, how they would work and external factors that might influence them ? | ↓ What factors do we need to consider eg trauma, trust, communication preferences? | ↓ Ambition and constraints for follow on work | ↓ What do we need to change about ourselves, our org, or system to deliver on this work? |
Use the following colour coded slides to help you answer the questions.
What project?
What’s the type of challenge?
| |||||||
Developing a solid evidence base | Making a decision where there is value conflict | Accelerate systems transformation | Implement existing model without changes | Determine value of implemented model | Choose a model or create an adaptation | Develop a hunch into a working solution | Develop new policy, strategy, services |
↓ Examples What’s the cost benefit of early intervention? What existing strategies are the most effective at attracting girls to STEM? | ↓ Examples Should we have a nuclear waste dump in our state? How should bikes and cars safely share roads? How should we allocate the city budget over 10yrs? | ↓ Examples What is the next paradigm of child protection services and how do we get there? What should be the future end of life experience in Australia and how do we get there? (EQT / TACSI) | ↓ Examples Implement the Triple P parenting program in 3 sites. | ↓ Examples How do existing family support services help and hinder change? (TACSI) What aspects of our services create the least value? | ↓ Examples How can we improve the primary care’s DV responses, in QLD? (BSPHN/TACSI) How can we adapt the UK education for 3yr olds model for Tasmania (Tas Gov/ TACSI) | ↓ Examples Can a coaching model added to jobactive improve employment outcomes? (SYC/TACSI) Can a ‘virtual Family by Family’ provide support to women experiencing violence during lockdown ? (SA Gov/ UC/ TACSI) | ↓ Examples What strategies could increase Indigenous employment? �(Aus Gov/ TACSI) What kinds of support could improve mental health outcomes for South Sudanese Australians in Melbourne? (Vic Gov, coHealth, TACSI) |
↓ Consider conventional research methods | ↓ Consider (DT enhanced) deliberative democracy methods | ↓ Consider (DT enhanced) systems change methods | ↓ Consider implement-�ation science approach | ↓ Design thinking a good fit. Or evaluation. | ↓ Design thinking good fit. | ↓ Design thinking good fit. | ↓ Design thinking good fit. |
Is design thinking a good fit?
What project?
What’s known?
| |||
Solutions exist but are not widespread in our system | We know others have found the solutions. | We know the problem but not the solution | We don’t know much about the problem or solution |
↓ Examples How can we spread effective practices for place based working | ↓ Examples How can we adapt the UK education for 3yr olds model for Tasmania (Tas Gov/ TACSI) | ↓ Examples How can we improve the primary care’s DV responses, in QLD? (BSPHN/TACSI) | ↓ Examples What kinds of support could improve mental health outcomes for South Sudanese Australians in Melbourne? (Vic Gov, coHealth, TACSI) |
↓ In ‘what is? Focus on comparing positive deviants in system with those that have not adopted the solution. | ↓ What is?: Understand what is working elsewhere and determine differences between contexts. What if? Check validity and focus on adaptations What works? Potential to shorten / drop if contexts are similar | ↓ Potential to shorten ‘What is?’ stage and move into ‘What if?’ more quickly. | ↓ Will need full process, with provision to repeat stages if required. |
Implications for the time, effort and focus for each diamond.
What project?
Who is most impacted
| |||||
Considerations for trauma | Considerations for communication preferences | Considerations for cognitive abilities and neurodiversity | Consideration for literacy | Considerations for culture and language | Considerations for marginalised groups |
↓ Examples First Nations people People engaged with criminal justice system Refugees | ↓ Examples Non-verbal people Deaf people | ↓ Examples Children People living with profound disabilities | ↓ Examples People with low levels of education | ↓ Examples First Nations people Recent migrants and refugees | ↓ Examples First Nations people Mental health consumers People living with disabilities |
↓ Trauma informed responses: time to build relationships and trust Methods that, create safety, set clear expectations and build on strengths. | ↓ Use methods that allow for non-verbal input, and inclusion of carers and supporters in process. | ↓ Use methods that allow for appropriate engagement. Consider inclusion of parents, carers and supporters in process if appropriate. | ↓ Use age and developmental stage appropriate methods including visual methods. Consider word of mouth recruitment processes. | ↓ Use culturally appropriate participatory approach Consider language for engagement Foreground cultural knowledge & consider cultural competency training | ↓ Use participatory approaches, and self-determined approaches to give groups control over process including in governance, design team and as respondents to design process. |
Implications for time, experience, methods and power sharing approach.
What project?
Ambitions & constraints
| ||
The solution | This project | Work that follows this project |
↓ Example It has to be a dining chair, that can flat pack to fit in the boot of a car and retail for $23 dollars. (Ikea) This is a breakthrough project, something entirely new, delivered in a new way. | ↓ Example We’ve got $1,0000, it’s got to be done in secret and by next Thursday. | ↓ Example It will be picked up by the national implementation of 3FTE who will expect to implement over 6 months in 20 sites where it will be run by local delivery teams of 2FTE at $90k p.a. |
↓ What are the financial and time constraints around initial implementation of the new model? What are the financial and time constraints around ongoing delivery of the new model? Who will support implementation of the new model? Who will deliver the new model? Legal constraints for model? Other constraints for model? | ↓ What’s the budget Who can be involved, and who can’t What are the timelines for key deliverables What are the deliverables What can be said publicly, what not What stages are we expecting to cover. | ↓ What work will happen to take this to scale / implementation? What is the budget for that work?�Who will lead that work? What do they need out of this process to do their work? |
Implications for what is designed, stages in project and deliverables.
What project?
Your decision making approach
| ||
We have very hierarchical decision making | We have devolved design making | We have distributed decision making |
↓ Examples CEO /Ministers regularly intervene on decisions to change them. | ↓ Examples The design team has full authority to decide the outcome, decision making authorities are generally respected. | ↓ Examples Teams and individuals free to make their own decisions in line with strategy and values. |
↓ Do not use participatory or self-determined approaches as you cannot honour your promise to participants. If using consultative approaches be clear that the processes is to inform (not decide). Design governance processes that include decision makers along the process | ↓ Consider using participatory approaches if appropriate; for governance, design team and respondents. Be clear with participants about what the process can decide and what is out of the influence of the process | ↓ Consider using participatory and self-determined approaches if appropriate. |
Implications for depth of participation and external communication
Activity: Creating a brief for a design thinking project
Choose a future, current or past project to apply design thinking to.
Write a brief for the project using the Design thinking project brief tool.
20mins
Design thinking (& doing) for�social innovation
What project?
Project _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The situation | People | Ambitions & constraints | About us |
↓�What’s the type of challenge? | ↓ What groups are most affected by the problem/opportunity? | ↓ Ambition and constraints for solution | ↓ What is our ambition for power sharing in this project? |
↓ What do we know at this stage about the problem/situation and underlying causes? | ↓ What are the desired outcomes for each group?? | ↓ Ambition and constraints for this project | ↓ How do we make decisions now - what’s our experience with this proposed approach to power sharing? |
↓ What do we know at this stage about potential solutions, how they would work and external factors that might influence them ? | ↓ What factors do we need to consider eg trauma, trust, communication preferences? | ↓ Ambition and constraints for follow on work | ↓ What do we need to change about ourselves, our org, or system to deliver on this work? |
Use the colour coded slides above to help you answer the questions.
What project?
Design thinking project brief
The situation | People | Ambitions & constraints | About us |
↓�What’s the type of challenge? | ↓ What groups are most affected by the problem/opportunity? | ↓ Ambition and constraints for solution | ↓ What is our ambition for power sharing in this project? |
↓ What do we know at this stage about the problem/situation and underlying causes? | ↓ What are the desired outcomes for each group?? | ↓ Ambition and constraints for this project | ↓ How do we make decisions now - what’s our experience with this proposed approach to power sharing? |
↓ What do we know at this stage about potential solutions, how they would work and external factors that might influence them ? | ↓ What factors do we need to consider eg trauma, trust, communication preferences? | ↓ Ambition and constraints for follow on work | ↓ What do we need to change about ourselves, our org, or system to deliver on this work? |
Use the colour coded slides above to help you answer the questions.
What project?
Design thinking project brief
The situation | People | Ambitions & constraints | About us |
↓�What’s the type of challenge? | ↓ What groups are most affected by the problem/opportunity? | ↓ Ambition and constraints for solution | ↓ What is our ambition for power sharing in this project? |
↓ What do we know at this stage about the problem/situation and underlying causes? | ↓ What are the desired outcomes for each group?? | ↓ Ambition and constraints for this project | ↓ How do we make decisions now - what’s our experience with this proposed approach to power sharing? |
↓ What do we know at this stage about potential solutions, how they would work and external factors that might influence them ? | ↓ What factors do we need to consider eg trauma, trust, communication preferences? | ↓ Ambition and constraints for follow on work | ↓ What do we need to change about ourselves, our org, or system to deliver on this work? |
Use the colour coded slides above to help you answer the questions.
What project?
Design thinking project brief
The situation | People | Ambitions & constraints | About us |
↓�What’s the type of challenge? | ↓ What groups are most affected by the problem/opportunity? | ↓ Ambition and constraints for solution | ↓ What is our ambition for power sharing in this project? |
↓ What do we know at this stage about the problem/situation and underlying causes? | ↓ What are the desired outcomes for each group?? | ↓ Ambition and constraints for this project | ↓ How do we make decisions now - what’s our experience with this proposed approach to power sharing? |
↓ What do we know at this stage about potential solutions, how they would work and external factors that might influence them ? | ↓ What factors do we need to consider eg trauma, trust, communication preferences? | ↓ Ambition and constraints for follow on work | ↓ What do we need to change about ourselves, our org, or system to deliver on this work? |
Use the colour coded slides above to help you answer the questions.
What’s good?
Scorecard
Design thinking (& doing) for�social innovation
What project?
What project?
Good is | Not good is… |
Being explicit about your assumptions (or questions): about the need, problem, solution, how the solution will work and external factors. | Staying quiet about your hunches or questions |
Naming your assumptions (or questions) about target groups and expected outcomes for those groups. | Being unclear about assumptions on target groups. |
Naming likely constraint for the solution e.g who will deliver it, what it needs to cost. | Being unclear about constraints. |
Considering issues of power and authenticity | Assuming power won’t play a role in your process. |
Giving those most affected by an issue or challenge genuine influence to shape the understanding of the problem, potential solutions and what works. | Engaging people without letting them have an influence over decision making. |
Good is | Not good is… |
Choosing an approach based on a consideration of:
| Choosing an approach based on considering only some of these factors. |
Establishing a design team with the expertise and diversity for the job. | Not considering who needs to be on the project. |
Structuring a process that includes time, resources and methods to: discover what is, create what if’s and develop what works. | |
2 What is?
Live session 2
Design thinking (& doing) for�social innovation
Planning to discover ‘What is?’
Design thinking (& doing) for�social innovation
What is?
What is? in 12 steps
Planning | Recruitment & Fieldwork | Making sense & sharing |
↓
| Recruitment
Fieldwork
| Making sense
Sharing
|
What is?
Source: Liz Sanders and Pieter Jan Stappers, Convivial Toolbox: Generative Research at the Front End of Design, 2012
Depth of research
Design research adds real value here
(& Value)
What is?
Research planning
Stream of learning�(See next slides) | Priority question 1 (See next slides) | Priority question 2 (See next slides) | Priority question 3 (See next slides) |
Research stream 1 ⟶�Eg People:Lived experience | Design research methods eg Semi-structured interview with card sorting | Design research methods eg N/A | Design research methods eg Rapid-ethnography |
Research stream 2 ⟶�Eg People:Service providers | Design research methods eg N/A | Design research methods eg Rapid ethnography | Design research methods eg N/A |
Research stream 3 ⟶�Eg Literature | Research method Eg Literature review | Research method Eg Literature review | Research method Eg N/A |
What is?
Streams of learning
Learning from evaluations & reviews | Horizon scans, literature reviews, systematic reviews |
Learning from academic literature | |
Learning from grey literature (eg think tanks) | |
Learning from data and finance | Data analysis |
Learning from other contexts | Visits, conversations |
Learning from all kinds of people:
| Design research methods: �Conversational based: semi-structured interviews, yarning with a purpose�Observative: rapid and service ethnography�Generative: designing and learning together using creative inquiry and tools |
What is?
Common research questions
Focus you research on the cohorts of people most impacted by the situation/solution:
For each cohort participating in research you are likely to explore a version of these questions:
What is?
Participant sample
Age
10-12
13-16
17-25
25-30
Ability
Physical
Psychosocial
Both
Location
Metro
Regional
Remote
Very remote
Outcomes
Surprisingly �poor
Poor
Good
Surprisingly good
Participant A
Participant B
Participant C
Recruitment
Design thinking (& doing) for�social innovation
What is?
Recruitment tips
What is?
Make things explicit
What is?
Recruitment channels
Design research collection methods
Design thinking (& doing) for�social innovation
What is?
Semi-structured interviews |
AKA: Interview, contextual interview What is it… 30min to 3hr structured sessions with individuals or small groups, often incorporating prompts or tools eg Timeline or Card sorting. In person, online, on the phone. Good for.. Many situations, can be tailored to participant communication preferences, and conducted by researchers or peer researchers. Considerations May be seen as too formal in some situations, consider Yarning with a purpose instead. In more detail… |
Image: Peer semi-structured interview in project to develop breakthrough services for NDIS with Life Without Barriers |
just have a chat
What is it?
relationship comes first
hold gently to your intention
follow the gold
What is?
Aunty Vickey Charles
Aboriginal Lead and Aunty
in Residence at TACSI
Yarning with �a purpose |
What is it… An intentional approach to yarning Good for.. Many situations. Often a better alternative that semi-structured interviews for First Nations people and others. Considerations .. In more detail… Listen to Aunty Vickey Charles describe the approach in the What is? podcast. |
What is?
Journey mapping |
AKA: User journeys, draw it What is it… Visually mapping experiences overtime as a prompt to more in depth conversation. Good for.. Many situations, especially when you are looking for insight into past experiences. Considerations May be harmful it is forces unwanted reflection on past events eg traumatic events. In more detail… |
Image: Exploring organisations experiences with volunteering for Australian Volunteer Program Innovation Hub. |
What is?
Card sorting |
AKA: Prompt cards What is it… Sorting information about past experiences, and or preferred future experiences. Good for.. Many situations, often used in semi-structured interviews. Gets to insight fast. Considerations Really benefits from testing the method to refine the prompts. In more detail… |
Image: Exploring barriers to family thriving for Family by Family project |
Design thinking (& doing) for�social innovation
What is?
Rapid ethnography |
AKA: Rigorous hanging-out, participant observation, design ethnography What is it… Immersive learning through spending hours or days with people in their context and doing what they do. Good for.. Situations where you need to understand context, unfamiliar situations, understanding service experiences. Considerations Only works if participant is comfortable to be shadowed, may be safer if done by peers. In more detail… |
Image: Observing journey to school experience for Designing with Aboriginal Families Project, TACSI. |
What is?
Photo �diaries |
AKA: Diaries, photo journal also see Cultural probes What is it… Participant created records of their activities through photos, text or other methods. Good for.. Getting insight into experiences over time when you can’t be there. Considerations How to make the task enjoyable for participants In more detail… |
Image: Food diary, for Open Health, Red Unit Design Council. Participant said he ate healthily. |
Generative design research methods
Design with me
Design thinking (& doing) for�social innovation
What is?
Designing together |
AKA: Draw it, ideal solution, magic wand What is it… Working with participant to design their ideal solution to a given situation. Good for.. Getting insight into the kinds of experiences people see as desirable, and what they would value in a future experience. Considerations Finding the right approach, so participant is comfortable with chosen approach, eg drawing, or using kids toys, or creating a storyboard. In more detail… |
Image: Nielsen Norman Group |
Making sense and shaping strong opportunities.
Design thinking (& doing) for�social innovation
An approach to analysis
1
Pour the information
Organise all relevant data against your priority questions (or any other frames of analysis eg value proposition canvas or persona) Make note of any early opportunity areas or ideas too.
2
Spot the patterns
Look at the categorised data and try to spot patterns that start to answer the questions. Summarise those patterns as an insight. “We learnt that……..?”
3
How might we….? �From everything you’ve learnt, and referring to your project question describe the opportunity. (see next slide)
What is?
What is?
Formula for opportunities
Insight What do you conclude from the research? �We learnt that... |
Primary evidence On what data is this based, what did you hear or see in the research? Because we heard / saw… |
Secondary evidence Is there data from other sources that can triangulate this finding? Because others have found… |
Significance Why is this significant to this project This is significant because… |
Opportunity Describe the opportunity �How might we…. |
Ideas Set out multiple early ideas if we have them at this stage�What if… |
What is?
Communication tools for findings
Segments and Personas Grouping and describing cohorts
Journey Maps Showing experience over time
System maps Showing relationships, dynamics and levers within that.
What is?
Personas & segments |
AKA: Grouping and describing cohorts What is it… Grouping and describing cohorts within your target group, to better understand common needs and desires, and share them with others. Good for.. Creating a small number of groups to target for solutions from a large number with diverse needs, and describing them. Considerations Segmenting along the In more detail… |
Image: Nielsen Norman Group |
Personas
What is?
Personas
What is?
Anatomy of a persona
Segments
Who are the extremes or groups of cohorts we want to represent?
Characteristics
Who is this person and what do we need to know about them?
Barriers and benefits
What are the key things that help and hinder this person? Why?
Needs and wants
What’s the ‘job to be done’?
Supports and influencers
Who else is in their network (positive and negative)?
What is?
Journey map
What is?
Journey map
What is?
Anatomy of user journey map
What is?
Systems diagram
What is?
Systems diagram
What is?
Anatomy of a systems map
What’s good?
Scorecard
Design thinking (& doing) for�social innovation
What is?
What is?
Good is | Not good is… |
Planning starts early in the process, often in What project? phase. | Insufficient lead-time for recruitment activities. |
Builds on what’s already known | Ignores existing research and knowledge that could accelerate the process. |
Framed by a small number (around 3) key questions | Is poorly planned, making analysis hard |
Chooses the best methods to answer those questions, and tests those methods in practice | Methods don’t deliver on questions - no testing |
Carefully selects cohorts most likely to be impacted by the work as research participants | Does not include end users or beneficiaries of services or policies. Eg may just engage their representative groups. |
Carefully selects a diversity of people within each of those cohorts | Only engages with the easy-to-reach in these cohorts. |
Good is | Not good is… |
Conducts ethical research, culturally appropriate with informed consent | Causes harm and infringes rights through re-traumatising processes, culturally unsafe processes, or through opaque consent processes. |
Creates real value for participants for example through reflection, learning or financial reward | Participants are not compensated or recognised for their contribution. |
Gets below the surface to what people know, feel, dream and value | Stays at the surface, ‘discovering’ only explicit knowledge. |
Identifies grounded opportunities, triangulated by multiple data sources. | Opportunities are not well supported by evidence. |
Communicates these opportunities in ways that excite interest and galvanise action | Opportunities are not compelling or clear. |
Looping back to participants to tell them what’s been learnt, and the impact of their contribution. | Participants are not given the option of being informed of findings or the impact of their contribution. |
4 What if?
Live session 3
Design thinking (& doing) for�social innovation
What if?
What if? in 3 steps
Having ideas | Developing concepts | Choosing concepts |
Using a number of creative strategies to generate promising ideas and choose the best to advance into concept development. | Developing multidimensional concepts that are good for beneficiary and good for funders and good for delivery.��Often considers: Desirability, experience, impact, finance, feasibility, strategic alignment and public perception | Sharing well communicated concepts for stakeholders to make informed and deliberative decisions, according to explicit criteria, on what to progress to ‘What works?’, or not. |
Creative factors
Naming the obvious
Time, space, relaxation
Diverse perspectives
Force constraints
Positive deviance
Remixing related worlds
Re-representing
Oblique or random strategies
Suspending judgement
Making
Design thinking (& doing) for�social innovation
What if?
Create time
“All creativity comes from the unconscious...It all boils down to getting into a playful and relaxed frame of mind... Unless you are relaxed you can’t hear the promptings from the unconscious.�John Cleese, Monty Python’s Flying Circus
What if?
Diversity
“‘Solutions to complex problems take many dissimilar minds and points of view to design, so we have to do that together, linking up with as many other us-twos as we can to form networks of dynamic interaction.’
Tyson Yunkaporta, Sandtalk - How Indigenous thinking can save the world.
What if?
Force constraints
Halve it
Double it
What if you had no money?
What if money was no object?
What if?
Remix
What if?
Re-represent
Draw
Make
Paint
Write
Act
Dance
Sing
�
What if?
Oblique strategies
What if?
Suspend judgement
“A new idea is delicate. It can be killed by a sneer or a yawn; it can be stabbed to death by a quip and worried to death by a frown on the right man's brow.”
Ovid
What if?
Realise
“Stop just talking, start making - jump to the end”
�
What if?
Creativity in 6 Rs
Relax Give your mind space to hear the promptings from your unconscious, turn off your phone, go to the beach
Related Worlds Borrow ideas from analogous contexts. e.g. take ideas from one industry to another
Re-express Represent the problem/opportunity in a different way e.g. use metaphor, or dance
Reverse Change all the norms e.g. what if you did something in half the time, or at twice the cost?
Random Pick a random word from a dictionary, force a connection, see what you get.
Realise Don’t just think and talk, start making too
Prototyping
Design thinking (& doing) for�social innovation
What if?
Prototype before pilot
Prototype
Many learning loops
Pilot
One learning loop
What if?
Prototyping loop
What if?
Prototyping loop
Hunch
What’s you hunch/idea/concept?
What are your big uncertainties?
What are the alternatives?
Build
Paper
Table-top
Framework
Scenario
Act it out, or run a live version
Test
How will you judge a good result?
Learn
What did you learn?
Next
Refine?
Reject?
Pivot?
Why?
To develop hunches
To refine ideas
To evaluate concepts
What if?
Prototyping fidelity
| Start of What if? | End of What if? | Start What works? | End What works? |
| Lower cost Lower fidelity Out of context testing | | Higher cost Higher fidelity In context testing | |
Purpose | Develop initial ideas | Flesh out ideas into concepts | Make concepts workable | Build evidence for the model |
Success is | Enough high-potential ideas to progress to concepts. | Multidimensional concepts that considered impact, finances, implementation, experience & desirability. | A close to working model - good enough to run something live | An evidence base for the new model with the validity to support decision making in the next stage. |
Testing is | Constructive feedback from colleagues in design team. | Constructive feedback from people who might use or deliver a service or policy. | Performance of live prototype measured through simple tests. | Structured evaluations that provide context-relevant evidence. |
Service prototyping example | Developing four alternative scripts for a referral call through improvisational role play by the design team. | Getting feedback on scripts, or recorded calls from people who might actually make and take the calls. | Developing the training for referrers through two prototype training experiences with actual referers. | Live A-B testing two alternative forms of referral call as part of an actual service to evaluate the most effective approach. |
Policy prototyping example | Developing four potential policy options by writing scenarios about the future. | Developing more detailed concepts though feedback on scenarios by funders, deliverers & beneficiaries. | Prototyping the implementation model for policy | Trialing the policy in a few select locations, with developmental evaluation approach. |
Design thinking (& doing) for�social innovation
What if?
Paper or screen prototypes |
What is it… Using paper or a screens to visualise what something would look like, and then getting feedback on that representation. Good for.. Very useful in what if, and to design paper or screen based artifacts. In more detail… |
Image: A paper sketch of a tool to learn what skills are most needed for young people when entering the job market. |
What if?
Desktop�prototyping |
What is it… Modeling a system or service on a table using three dimensional objects eg lego or children's toys, and acting out interactions. Good for.. Early idea generation around systems. Good for testing the flow of interactions or relationships in a service or system. Particularly good to develop concepts more fully, and if filmed for improving concepts. In more detail… |
Image: A participant shows how multiple services need to come together to engage people who have recently left prison. |
What if?
Framework prototyping |
What is it… Modeling intangible aspects of a service or system using frameworks such as a theory of change, business model canvas, user journey or service blueprint.
Good for.. Good for forcing the development of a concept with considerations for a wide range of perspectives. Good for testing with experts eg in business models or how change happens. In more detail… |
Image: A theory of change and business model canvas templates |
What if?
Scenario prototyping |
What is it… Can be drawn comic strips, storyboards, videos or written scenarios
Good for.. Good for efficiently testing solutions that operate across time or geographies or demographics. Good for teams with strong writing or visualising skills. In more detail… |
Image: A storyboard to develop interactions that would allow for safe disclosure of domestic violence at GP clinics. |
What if?
Enacted prototyping |
What is it… Acting out a situation, eg through role play.
Good for.. Developing ideas that involve human to human interactions. Refining ideas for human to human interactions. In more detail… |
Image: An enacted prototype (with props) to test better conversations on the pathway to NDIS support. |
What if?
Live prototyping |
What is it… Live and limited service delivery is used to refine and develop an evidence base for a service. Services are typically limited by time, the extent of the prototype (eg front desk only) or the number of participants.
Good for.. Live prototyping can create a very high quality learning experience when concepts are sufficiently developed, ie in the What works? Stage In more detail… |
Image: Live prototype of a new domestic violence support service that took 12 weeks to design, start-up and deliver. |
What if?
Common criteria for judging concepts
Good for people | Good for organisation | Good for general public |
What change will it prompt? How many people is it relevant to? How desirable it is? | Is it strategically aligned? Is it financially compelling? Is it feasible for us to deliver this? | Is this a good story? Is this politically aligned? Is the public interest / support? |
What’s good?
Scorecard
Design thinking (& doing) for�social innovation
What if?
What if?
Good is | Good is not… |
Dedicated time and headspace for the team so ideas can come to the fore. | Squeezing creative work into an incredible tight and stressful timeframe |
Creating a space for a diversity of people to come together and suggest new ways of responding to opportunities. | Idea creation by the same type of people that create the current solution |
Deliberately developing diverse inspiration points, often as part of the What is? phase. | A lack of inspirational reference points. |
Using a diversity of approaches for idea creation, including different people, different contexts, different prompts. | Using only one approach for idea generation that may only suite some people. |
Several loops of learning with feedback from participants and different stakeholders eg finance people | Idea generation that doesn’t include some kind of making and feedback to learn - eg role play or paper based prototyping |
Good is | Good is not… |
Concepts tell the story of their potential from a number of different angles such as: desirability, reach, relevance, strategic alignment, financial model, political and public palatability. | Concepts that are still one dimensional ideas. |
A set of evenly well prepared presented for decision making. | Some concepts better represented than others, making them hard to compare. |
Making selection judgements informed by clear criteria that encourage looking to the potential of the idea in the future. | An overly complicated set of selection criteria. |
An approach to choice making that encourages deliberation, hearing others views and allows for people to shift their perspective. | A transactional approach to choice making. |
A set of concepts that identify the greatest remaining uncertainties and propose a way to test them in the ‘what works?’ stage of work. | A set of concepts that pretend they have everything worked out. |
Design thinking (& doing) for�social innovation
What works?
What works? in 3 steps
Getting ready | Live prototyping | Piloting |
Refinement of model to go live | Live prototyping of model with increasing levels of rigour | Piloting of model to establish an evidence base |
The innovation journey
Design thinking (& doing) for�social innovation
What works?
The innovation journey
Discovery - getting �through the mystery
Crossing the ravine �of imagination
Finding a formula
for local change
Formula
for local delivery
Implementation
(The other side of innovation)
Formula
for delivery at scale
Evaluation
Design thinking (& doing) for�social innovation
What works?
Options for evaluation
All phases
What works? phase
What’s good?
Scorecard
Design thinking (& doing) for�social innovation
What works?
What works?
Good is | Not good is… |
The expectation, and the resources, to make changes to the concept as you think and learn more | Focussing on implementing the concept as described, without change. |
Stakeholders connected and learning throughout process | Stakeholders disconnected from what works process. |
Choosing maturity-appropriate evaluation approaches. | Formalising evaluation when the model is still in flux. |
Develops the multiple different kinds of evidence needed to make decisions about the next stage. | Developing only one kind of evidence - eg desirability of experience |
Good is | Not good is… |
Adaption designed-in. | Rigid solutions, expected to work everywhere. |
Designing in accountability to the lived-experience vision. | Quality, monitoring and evaluation processes are not designed-in to the solution. |
Explores local delivery models (to create that change) and, when appropriate, how to scale delivery across multiple locations. | What works? only considers what directly creates change |
Activity: Create a scorecard for your project.
Rate your current project by moving the sticky dots to the ‘good’ or ‘not good’ column.
Leave them where they are for ‘undecided’ or ‘don’t know’
20 mins
Design thinking (& doing) for�social innovation
What project?
What project?
Good is | Not good is… |
Being explicit about your assumptions (or questions): about the need, problem, solution, how the solution will work and external factors. | Staying quiet about your hunches or questions |
Naming your assumptions (or questions) about target groups and expected outcomes for those groups. | Being unclear about assumptions on target groups. |
Naming likely constraint for the solution e.g who will deliver it, what it needs to cost. | Being unclear about constraints. |
Considering issues of power and authenticity | Assuming power won’t play a role in your process. |
Giving those most affected by an issue or challenge genuine influence to shape the understanding of the problem, potential solutions and what works. | Engaging people without letting them have an influence over decision making. |
Good is | Not good is… |
Choosing an approach based on a consideration of:
| Choosing an approach based on considering only some of these factors. |
Establishing a design team with the expertise and diversity for the job. | Not considering who needs to be on the project. |
Structuring a process that includes time, resources and methods to: discover what is, create what if’s and develop what works. | Structuring a process that under resources stages, or skips them altogether. |
What is?
What is?
Good is | Not good is… |
Planning starts early in the process, often in What project? phase. | Insufficient lead-time for recruitment activities. |
Builds on what’s already known | Ignores existing research and knowledge that could accelerate the process. |
Framed by a small number (around 3) key questions to answer | Is poorly planned, making analysis hard |
Chooses the best methods to answer those questions, and tests those methods in practice | Methods don’t deliver on questions - no testing |
Carefully selects cohorts most likely to be impacted by the work as research participants | Does not include end users or beneficiaries of services or policies. Eg may just engage their representative groups. |
Carefully selects a diversity of people within each of those cohorts | Only engages with the easy-to-reach in these cohorts. |
Good is | Not good is… |
Conducts ethical research, culturally appropriate with informed consent | Causes harm / infringes rights through re-traumatising processes, culturally unsafe processes, or through opaque consent processes. |
Creates real value for participants for example through reflection, learning or financial reward | Participants are not compensated or recognised for their contribution. |
Gets below the surface to what people know, feel, dream and value | Stays at the surface, ‘discovering’ only explicit knowledge. |
Identifies grounded opportunities, triangulated by multiple data sources. | Opportunities are not well supported by evidence. |
Communicates these opportunities in ways that excite interest and galvanise action | Opportunities are not compelling or clear. |
Loops back to participants to tell them what’s been learnt, and let them know about the impact of their contribution. | Participants are not given the option of being informed of findings or the impact of their contribution. |
What if?
What if?
Good is | Good is not… |
Dedicated time and headspace for the team so ideas can come to the fore. | Squeezing creative work into an incredibly tight and stressful timeframe. |
Creating a space for a diversity of people to come together and suggest new ways of responding to opportunities. | Idea creation by the same type of people that create the current solution |
Deliberately developing diverse inspiration points, often as part of the What is? Phase. | A lack of inspirational reference points. |
Using a diversity of approaches for idea creation, including different people, different contexts, different prompts. | Using only one approach for idea generation that may only suit some people. |
Several loops of learning with feedback from participants and different stakeholders eg finance people | Idea generation that doesn’t include some kind of making and feedback to learn - eg role play or paper based prototyping |
Good is | Good is not… |
Concepts tell the story of their potential from a number of different angles such as: desirability, reach, relevance, strategic alignment, financial model, political and public palatability. | Concepts that are still one dimensional ideas. |
A set of evenly well prepared presented for decision making. | Some concepts are better presented than others, making them hard to compare. |
Making selection judgements informed by clear criteria that encourage looking to the potential of the idea in the future. | An overly complicated set of selection criteria. |
An approach to choice making that encourages deliberation, hearing others views and allows for people to shift their perspective. | A transactional approach to choice making. |
A set of concepts that identify the greatest remaining uncertainties and propose a way to test them in the ‘what works?’ stage of work. | A set of concepts that pretend they have everything worked out. |
What works?
What works?
Good is | Not good is… |
The expectation, and the resources, to make changes to the concept as you think and learn more | Focussing on implementing the concept as described, without change. |
Stakeholders conencted and learning througout process | Stakeholders disconnected from what works process. |
Choosing maturity-appropriate evaluation approaches. | Formalising evaluation when the model is still in flux. |
Develops the multiple different kinds of evidence needed to make decisions about the next stage. | Developing only one kind of evidence - eg desirability of experience |
Good is | Not good is… |
Adaption designed-in. | Rigid solutions, expected to work everywhere. |
Designing in accountability to the lived-experience vision. | Quality, monitoring and evaluation processes are not designed-in to the solution. |
Explores local delivery models (to create that change) and, when appropriate, how to scale delivery across multiple locations. | What works? only considers what directly creates change |
Activity: Reflection on the course.
Working alone the questions on the next slides by writing in the yellow post-its.
10 mins
Design thinking (& doing) for�social innovation
What works?
What’s the most significant changes for you as an individual?
For me… bringing together a range of elements I have experienced but rarely all together
For me..learning more about design processes in a comprehensive way and being able to implement this thinking in real-time on a real project.
For me….
For me….
For me….
For me…. I have lived experience of the power of going through the detail of planning with multiple people, over multiple iterations.
For me experiencing a range of new ideas to help develop my design capabilities.
For me….
For me….
For me….
What works?
What’s next on your design thinking learning journey?
For me….
For me….
For me….
For me….
For me….
For me….
For me….
For me….
For me….
For me….
Design thinking (& doing) for�social innovation