Understand Design Thinking

1.1 What needs are addressed in the Playbook?

As described in the Introduction, we wanted to write a book for all those interested in innovation, for movers and shakers as well as entrepreneurs who design digital and physical products, services, business models, and business ecosystems as part of their work. Regarding our three personas, we were able to identify three very different kinds of users who apply design thinking in their day-to-day activities. One thing the three have in common, though: All three of them want to create something new in a rapidly changing world. Which brings us straight to our initial question:

How can we learn more about a potential user and better uncover his or her hidden needs?

In the individual chapters, we focus on the three personas of “Peter,” “Lilly,” and “Marc.” We hope this lets us address the needs of design thinking practitioners as best as possible.

“Who is Peter?”

Peter, 40 years old, works at a large Swiss information and communications technology (ICT) company. Peter came in contact with design thinking in the context of a company project four years ago. Peter was a product manager then. Searching for the next major market opportunity, he had already tried out quite a few things. For a while, Peter always wore red underwear on New Year’s Day, but it didn’t make him any luckier in terms of successful innovations. After this experience, he doubted at first whether design thinking was really something for him. It was hard for him to imagine that something useful could come out at the end of the described procedure. The approach seemed just a little esoteric to him.

His attitude changed after he attended a number of co-creation and design thinking workshops with customers. He felt the momentum that can come into being when people with different backgrounds tackle complex problems together in the right environment. Paired with a good facilitator who provides work instructions in a targeted manner, any group can be empowered to create a new experience for a potential user. This positive experience prompted Peter to take on the role in such design thinking workshops as a facilitator. Owing to the workshop experience he had gotten and its successful implementation in projects, Peter was promoted not long ago. He now has the privilege of calling himself an “Innovation & Co-Creation Manager.”

He is glad to meet like-minded spirits at events such as “Bits & Pretzels” in Munich or design thinking meetings in Nice, Prague, or Berlin where he can exchange thoughts and ideas with the who’s who among digitization evangelists.

More about Peter: What is his background experience?

Peter studied at the Technical University of Munich. After graduating, he held various positions in the telecommunications, IT, media, and entertainment industries. Five years ago, he decided to move from Munich to Switzerland. Its location and excellent infrastructure convinced him to make this daring change. There, Peter met his future wife, Priya. He has been happily married for two years. She works for Google at their corporate campus in Zurich. Priya is not allowed to talk much about the exciting topics she works on, although Peter would be quite intrigued by them.

Both like to get involved with new technologies. Be it the smart watch, augmented reality, or using what the sharing economy has to offer, they try out everything the digital world comes out with. A few weeks ago, Peter had his dream of getting a Tesla come true. Now he is waiting for his car to be self-driving soon so he can enjoy the beautiful landscape while looking out the window. In his new role as Innovation & Co-Creation Manager, Peter now belongs among the “creative” ones. He has replaced his suits and leather shoes with Chucks.

Peter tried to resolve the last crisis in his relationship with a little design thinking session. Priya was very aloof with Peter all of a sud- den. Peter took the time to listen to Priya and better understand her needs. Together, they discussed ways to bring more oomph into their relationship. During the brainstorming, Peter had the idea that wearing his lucky red underwear might save the relationship. But in the meantime, he had developed so much empathy for Priya’s concerns that he quickly dismissed the idea. In the end, they came up with a couple of good ideas for their relationship. Priya did wish, though, that Peter would use a different method to learn his needs besides design thinking.

Up to now, Peter had used design thinking in various situations. He learned that the approach sometimes worked very well for reaching a goal, but that sometimes it wasn’t right. He would like to get a couple of tips from experienced design thinkers to shape his work even more effectively.

Visualization of the persona

User profile of an experienced design thinker from actual practice:

Pains:

• Peter’s employer does not invest much in the further training of employees.
• Although Peter feels quite competent by now in dealing with design thinking, he is still convinced he could get more out of the approach.
• Peter has noted that, while design thinking is a powerful tool, it is not always used optimally.
• Peter frequently wonders how the digital transformation might be accelerated and what design criteria will be needed in the future to be a success on the market.
• Peter would like to combine other methods and tools with design thinking.
• Peter is faced with the challenge of having to impart to his team a new mindset.
• He would like to exchange ideas with other design thinking experts outside his company.

Gains:

• Peter has a lot of leeway in his daily work to try out new methods and tools.
• He loves books and all tangible things. He likes to use visualizations and simple prototypes for explaining things.
• What he would really like to do is establish design thinking in the whole company.
• He knows various management approaches he would like to link with design thinking.

Jobs-to-be-done:

• Peter has internalized the design thinking mindset., but sometimes, good examples that would help to change his environment don’t come easily to him.
• Peter enjoys trying out new things. With his engineering background, he is open to other approaches to problem solving (whether quantitative or analytical).
• He would like to become an expert in this environment as well. He is looking to connect with like-minded individuals.
• Peter experiments with design thinking.

Use cases:

A book in which experts report on their experience, in which tools are explained by way of examples—such a book would be just the thing in Peter’s eyes. A book he could recommend to his company at all hierarchical levels. A book that expands the framework of inspi- ration and makes people want to learn more about design thinking. He would also like to know which design criteria will be needed in the future, in particular for the development of digital products and services.

“Who is Lilly?”

Lilly, 28 years old, is currently working as a design thinking and startup coach at Singapore University of Technology & Design (SUTD). Theinstitute is one of the pioneers in design thinking and entrepreneurship for technology-oriented companies in the Asian region. Lilly organizes workshops and courses that combine design thinking and leanstartup. She teaches Design Thinking and coaches student teamsin their projects. In tandem with that, she is working on her doctoralthesis—in cooperation with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—in the area of System Design Management on the subject of“Design of Powerful Business Ecosystems in a Digitized World.”

To divide participants into groups, Lilly uses the HBDI® (Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument) model in her design thinking courses. Productive groups of four to five are formed this way, each one of which works on one problem statement. She has discovered that it is vitally important in each group to unite all modes of thinking described in the brain model. Lilly’s own preferred style of thinking is clearly located in her right half of the brain. She is experimental, creative, and likes to surround herself with other people.

Lilly studied Enterprise Management at the Zhejiang University School of Management. For her master’s degree, she spent a year at the École des Ponts ParisTech. As part of the ME310 program and in collaboration with Stanford University, she worked on a project there with THALES as an industrial partner, which is how she became familiar with design thinking. During this project, she visited Stanford three times. She liked the ME310 project so much that she decided to attend the University of Technology & Design in Singapore. There, Lilly became known among faculty for her extravagant flip-flops. SUTD students were less enthusiastic about them.

More about Lilly: What is her background experience?

Lilly has great in-depth theoretical knowledge of various methods and approaches and is able to apply them practically with her teams of students. She is good at coaching these teams but lacks understanding of actual practice. Lilly offers design thinking workshops at the Center of Entrepreneurship at Singapore University of Technology & Design. Frequently, people from industrial enterprises who want to learn more in terms of their innovation capability or better understand the topic of “intrapreneurship” take part in these workshops. Lilly lives in Singapore and shares an apartment with her friend Jonny, whom she met during her year in France. Jonny is an expat who works for a major French bank in Singapore. At first, Jonny thought Lilly’s flip-flops were somewhat freaky but, at this point, he likes that little splash of color on her.

To maximize success, Jonny sees great potential in user-centered design and his bank’s pronounced orientation toward customer interaction points. He is enormously interested in new technologies. The thought of what they might mean for banks fascinates and unsettles him at the same time. He follows events in the fintech sector very closely and has identified new potentials that might result from a systematic application of blockchain. He wonders whether such disruptive new technologies will change banks and their business models even more fundamentally than Uber changed the taxi sector or Airbnb the hotel industry—and, if so, when such changes will take place. The core question for Jonny is whether a time will come when banks as we know them will cease to exist altogether. Either way, banks need to become more customer-oriented and make better use of the opportunities that digitization offers than potential newcomers. Jonny is not afraid of losing his job as yet. But still, a start-up together with Lilly might be an exciting alternative. Jonny would like to see his bank apply design thinking and internalize a new mindset, but this is nothing but wishful thinking thus far.

Lilly and Jonny would also like to set up a consulting firm that applies design thinking to support enterprises with digital transformation. They are still looking for something unique that their start-up could offer in comparison to conventional consultancy firms. In particular, they would like to address cultural needs in their approach to consulting. Lilly has observed too many times how the European and American design thinking mindset failed in an Asian context. She wants to integrate local particularities in her design thinking approach: the attitude of an anthropologist, the acceptance of copying competitors, and the penchant for marketing services more quickly, instead of observing the market for a long time. Something else makes them hesitant to implement their plan: They are bit risk averse because next year, once Lilly has completed her doctoral thesis, they want to get married and raise a family. Lilly wants three children.

In her free time, Lilly is active and creative. She often meets with like-minded people she knows from the SkillsFuture program, which is a national program that provides Singaporeans the possibility to develop their fullest potential throughout life, regardless of their starting points; or from events such as “Innovation by Design,” which was funded by the DesignSingapore Council. They develop concepts for, among other things, adapting the space and the environment of the country to the needs of people. Lilly is especially intrigued by digital initiatives and hackathons that come into being through real-time data from sensors, social media, and anonymized motion profiles of mobile devices. Singapore is a pioneer that brings the design thinking mindset actively to the entire nation, not least with the “Infusing Design as a National Skill Set for Everyone” campaign.

Visualization of the persona

User profile of an experienced design thinker from the academic environment:

Pains:

• Lilly is uncertain whether she wants to begin a family or a start-up after she has finished her dissertation.
• Lilly would like to work as a professor in the area of design thinking and lean start-up in Southeast Asia, preferably in Singapore, but no such position exists there yet.
• She feels confident in design thinking both in theory and in her work with students, but she has a hard time establishing its importance for actual practice and convincing partners in the industry of its power.
• Working with colleagues from other departments is difficult, although design thinking could be combined well with other approaches.
• Lilly would like to exchange ideas with other design thinkers throughout the world in order to enlarge her network and make contact with industry partners, but has not yet found a platform to do so.

Gains:

• Lilly enjoys the possibilities offered by the intense contact with students she has as a coach. She can easily try out new ideas, and observing of her students has yielded many findings for her doctoral thesis.
• Lilly loves TED Talks and MOOCs (massive open online classes). She has already attended many courses and talks revolving around the topics of design thinking, creativity, and lean start-up, and has thus acquired a broad knowledge base. She would like to integrate new findings and methods in her courses.
• Lilly wants to bring her knowledge to a community and cultivate contact with other experts, to advance methods, publish, and do research together.
• Through the exchange with those involved in actual practice, Lilly can test and improve new ideas.

Jobs-to-be-done:

• Lilly understands design thinking in theory and is good at explaining the approach to students. But sometimes, she can’t think of good new examples and success stories from industry that could motivate the students and workshop participants to try out design thinking on their own.
• Lilly coaches students and start-ups, and organizes design thinking and lean start-up workshops. Her aim is to boost user centricity with all participants.
• Lilly enjoys trying out new things. She knows ethnographic methods and human-centered approaches from her studies. What has surprised her time and again is that the stereotypes of individual disciplines have an element of truth in them, yet interdisciplinary teams still achieve more exciting results.
• Lilly wants to meet new people and find ideas for her work and her start-up.

Use cases:

The book Lilly wants is one that contains many examples and ac tivities from actual practice instead of pure theory. An easy-to-use reference book with tips from experts that widens her inspiration framework and fires her desire for design thinking. A playbook that looks into the future and shows how design thinking will continue to develop. A book that she can recommend to her students as further reading material.

“Who is Marc?”

Marc, 27 years old, completed his MSc in Computer Science two years ago. He used his time at Stanford University to build out his network. He also attended a number of pop-up sessions at the d.school (Stanford University design school) on the theme of entrepreneurship and digital innovation. Marc met like-minded people there who voiced ideas just as crazy as his. Because Marc is somewhat introverted and does not just walk up and speak to people easily, he was grateful for the workshops at the d.school, which were accompanied by a facilitator. The facilitator created an atmosphere in which not only were ideas exchanged but one’s thought preferences were recognized, and teams were optimally put together. His group quickly recognized and appreciated Marc as “the innovator.” The other team members had knowledge of marketing and sales, finance and management control, and health care and mechanical engineering. The group was thrilled by Marc’s idea of stirring up the health care and medtech industry through the use of distributed ledger technology. Marc made quite an impression with words like bitcoin, Zcash, Ethereum, Ripple, Hyperledger Fabric, Corda, and Sawtooth. He waxed enthusiastic about frameworks such as ERIS being miracle weapons to tame the smart-contract dragons. Moreover, Marc had already been involved in two start-ups. For the makers and shakers of two Web analytics firms, he had written code during a summer internship. The group quickly realized that they wanted to found a start-up, knowing very well that Marc’s technological affinity for blockchain, together with their business idea, would not yet make a profitable business. Processes and in particular business ecosystems must be designed to initiate a revolution.

More about Marc: What is his background experience?

Marc grew up with mobile communication. As a digital native, he pursues a technology-based lifestyle, as we have already learned. On the level of popular sociology, he is a typical representative of generation Y (why). It is important to him that he do something meaningful with his skills. He wants to work on a team and get recognition. It would be best that no one tell him what to do when it comes to his special field of blockchain.

Marc grew up in Detroit. His parents were middle class. Both of them had made careers in major automotive companies. Hence Marc witnessed how an entire industry can lose its luster bit by bit. The subprime and financial crisis showed him that, from one day to the next, it can become impossible to pay the mortgage for the big mansion in the Detroit suburbs. Marc learned early on how to deal with uncertainties. He internalized how to “dance” with uncertainty and how to weigh options. For him, design thinking and the associated mindset are a natural attitude. Questioning the things that exist and finding new solutions for problems have always been something obvious to him. He owed the privilege of studying at Stanford to a scholarship. Besides the option of founding a start-up with his team from the d.school, he has received job offers at the campus job fair from Spotify and Facebook involving artificial intelligence. Marc likes both companies because they promise he’d be master over his own time and be able to work autonomously.

In his leisure time, Marc is a big baseball fan. His favorite team is the Detroit Tigers.

Coming home from the job fair in question, Marc met Linda, a Brazilian beauty who works as a nurse at the health center of his university. Marc was so taken by reading on his smartphone about the concept of Everledger that he had stepped onto the bicycle lane. Linda was just able to brake in time, but they both got quite a fright from the encounter. Marc was a bit embarrassed, but then he dared ask Linda if she wanted to network with him on Facebook. Marc is very proud of this. Now they swap emoticons via Whatsapp nearly every hour. Marc usually sends little diamonds—not as a digital assets but as virtual tokens of affection to his lovely Linda. But he was also fascinated by the fact that diamonds as digital assets change owners through a private blockchain.

Visualization of the team

User profiles of a typical start-up team:

Pains:

• For Marc, his team doesn’t learn quickly enough. He wants to conduct simple experiments and devel-
• op prototypes in the service environment more rapidly.
• Marc pursues a lean approach for his start-up and has noticed how important it is to be honest with oneself and that the biggest risks should be tested first.
• The dynamics of the market and the technology are so great that even things that have already been tested ought to be questioned again and again.
• Marc always sees new options in the business ecosystem. It is sometimes hard for him to design a complex ecosystem and to shape the business models for the actors in the system.

Gains:

• Marc is enthusiastic about his subject and his team. He enjoys the energizing atmosphere and meaningful work.
• Marc uses design thinking for innovation exchange and combines it with new elements.
• Marc loves the possibilities of digital business models and knows that the whole world is in upheaval, offering start-ups huge opportunities.
• At this point, Marc has come to love interviews and tests with real users. He has learned to ask the right questions and looks forward to the new findings that are spewed forth at a rapid pace.

Jobs-to-be-done:

• Marc wants a book that gives leeway to his natural talent for questioning what exists, presents him with new tools, and shows him how they’re applied.
• He wants to know how he can transform his knowledge of information technologies into meaningful solutions. It’s vital to him that he find a scalable solution for his blockchain idea quickly and that an innovative business model makes the enterprise viable in the medium term.
• He wishes to work in an environment in which the concept of “teams of teams” is a lived reality, and would like to get suggestions for it.
• With the aid of design thinking, Marc wants to establish a common language and mindset. The dynamics, complexity, and uncertainty are rising. Marc can deal with the situation pretty well, but he has noted that his team is not so good at it.
• Particularly in the blockchain environment, technologicalvdevelopment is proceeding quite rapidly. The team must learnvfrom experiments speedily and develop both the market andvcustomers.

Use cases:

Marc would like a book that helps his team adopt the design thinking mindset more speedily and learn faster. The book should contain suggestions and tips, both for experienced design thinkers and for people who are dealing with the mindset for the first time.

In addition, Marc would like to get suggestions on how to develop his digital business ecosystem and how to maintain strategic agility even in the growth phase.

EXPERT TIP
Create a persona

How do we proceed when creating a persona?

There are different ways of creating personas. It is important to imagine the typical user as a “real person.” People have experience, a life career, preferences, and private and professional interests. The primary goal is to find out what their true needs are. Frequently, potential users are sketched out in an initial iteration, which is based on the knowledge of the participants. It must then be verified that a user who has been sketched out like this actually exists in the real world. Interviews and observations often show that potential users have different needs and preferences than those originally assumed. Without exploring these deeper insights, we never would have found out that Peter likes red underpants and Lilly has a tic with flip-flops. In many workshops, so-called canvas models are used in the context of strategy work and the generation of business models and business ecosystems associated with it. We developed a “user profile canvas” for our workshops that helps in having the key questions at hand and, based upon them, in creating a persona expeditiously. To promote the creativity of participants and encourage out-of-the-box thinking, it is useful to cut the canvas apart and glue it onto a huge poster. On this poster, the persona can be drawn in full size. In so doing, it is worthwhile to improve the persona iteratively, refining it and digging deeper step by step.

It always makes sense to ask for the “why” in order to get to the actual problem. We try to find out about real situations and real events so as to find stories and document them. Photos, images, quotes, stories, etc., help to make the persona come alive. In general, work with the persona concept is reminiscent of the procedure applied by so-called profilers (case analysts) in American detective TV series. Profilers are on the hunt for the perpetrators. They solve murders and reconstruct the course of events. They work by describing relevant personality and character traits in order to draw conclusions from behavior.

We recommend taking the time to create a persona yourself. The intensity and closeness are important for building up empathy with the potential user. If time is short, standard personas can be used. You must be cautious when it comes to personas with brief descriptions. The example of the “persona twins” shows why. Although the core elements are the same, the potential users couldn’t be more different. This is why it really makes sense to dig one level deeper to understand the needs in greater detail. We get greater insights, and that makes things even more intriguing.

USER PROFILE CANVAS

EXPERT TIP
Empathy map

How do we build up empathy with a potential user?

The initial draft of a persona is quickly done. Although just an outline exists, it can be quite helpful and eye-opening. A brainstorming on the team can yield initial insights and contribute to a better understanding; it is absolutely necessary, though, that it be underpinned with real people, observations, and interviews. In a first step, the user must be defined and found. Ideally, we’ll go outside right at the beginning and meet a potential user. We observe him, listen to him, and build up empathy. The insights are well documented, in the best case using photos and videos. If you take pictures, it is important to ask permission beforehand, because not everybody likes to be photographed or filmed! A so-called empathy card can be used here that addresses the following areas: hearing, thinking and feeling, seeing, speaking and doing, frustration, and desire. We also suggest speaking to experts who know the persona well and, of course, being active yourself and doing what the user is doing.

The credo is: “Walk in the shoes of a potential user!”

Especially when we think we know the products or the situation, we attempt to approach a situation like a beginner—curious and without previous knowledge. Consciously and with all our senses, we go through the experience the user is going through!

After this “adventure,” it is useful to define hypotheses on the team, then test them with a potential user or by using existing data, then confirm, discard, or adapt them. The picture of the persona becomes clearer and more solid with each iteration.

EXPERT TIP
Review the persona

To obtain initial knowledge on the user, another tool that helps is the AEIOU method. AEIOU helps us to capture all the events in our environment.

The task is clear. Get out of the design thinking rooms and speak to potential users, walk in their shoes, do what they do.

The AEIOU questions help to put some structure into the observations. Especially with inexperienced groups, it is easier this way to ensure an efficient briefing on the task at hand.

Depending on the situation, it is useful to adapt the questions individually to the respective observations. The AEIOU catalog of questions and the associated instructions help participants establish contact with initial potential users. Experience has taught us that it helps the groups if a design thinking facilitator or somebody with needfinding experience accompanies first contact of potential users. We all are pretty inhibited when it comes to addressing strangers, observing them, and asking them about their needs. Once the first hurdle has been cleared, some participants and groups develop into true needfinding experts. Chapter 1.4 will deal in greater detail with needfinding and the creation of question maps.

AEIOU is broken down into five categories.

Consider how each of the users behaves in the real world and the digital world.

EXPERT TIP
Hook framework

How can we use people’s habits for our market success?

The hook framework (Alex Cowan) is based on the idea that a digital service or a product can become a habit for a user. The hook canvas is based on four main components: trigger for an action, activity, reward, and investment. For the potential user, there are two triggers for his actions: triggers from the external environment (e.g., a notification from Tinder that you received a “Super Like”) or internal triggers for an action (e.g., visiting the Facebook app when you feel lonely).

The action describes the minimum interaction of your service or your product with a potential user. As a good designer, you want to design an action to be as simple and fast as possible for the user. Reward is the key emotional element for the user. Depending on the configuration of the action, the user can be given a lot more than the satisfaction of the initial need. Think of positive reviews and feedback through a comment or article. You just wanted to share the information, but you get back far more due to the reputation of the community.

The question remains as to what the user invests in order to get himself back in the loop and to trigger an internal or external action. For example, he actively follows a Twitter feed or writes a notification that a certain product or service is available again.

EXPERT TIP
Jobs-to-be-done framework

What is the actual task of a product?

The jobs-to-be-done framework became widely known through the milkshake example. The problem statement looks familiar to us: How can the sales of milkshakes be increased by 15%? With a conventional mindset, you would look at the properties of the product and then consider whether a different topping, another flavor, or a different cup size might solve the problem. Through a customer survey, you find out that the new properties are popular. However, in the end, only incremental innovations are realized, and the result has only been marginally improved. The jobs-to-be-done framework focuses instead on a change of behavior and on customer needs. In the case of the milkshake, it was found this way that two types of customers buy milkshakes in a fast food restaurant. The point of departure was: Why do customers buy a product? To put it differently: What product would they buy instead of the well-known milkshake?

The result:

The first type of customer comes in the morning, commutes to work by car, and buys a milkshake as a substitute for breakfast and as a diversion while driving. Coffee doesn’t work because it is first too hot and then too cold. It is also liquid and can spill easily. The ideal milkshake is large, nutritious, and thick. So the jobs-to-be-done of the milkshake are therefore a breakfast substitute and a pleasant diversion while driving to work.

The second type of customer comes in the afternoon, usually, a mother with a child. The child wants something to eat in the fast food restaurant and is whining. The mother wants to get something healthy for the child and buys a milkshake. The milkshake should be small, thin, and liquid, so the child can drink it quickly, and it should be low in calories. The milkshake’s jobs-to-be-done are to satisfy the child and make the mother feel good. In principle, for any product, whether digital or physical, you can ask: Why would a customer buy my product or service?

Innovations like those designed by Adobe Photoshop and Instagram are good examples of jobs-to-be-done in the digital environment. Both solutions aim at making photographs look like those taken by pros. Photo- shop offers easy professional editing of pictures through an app. Instagram realized early on that pictures can be easily edited and shared via social media.

HOW MIGHT WE...develop a persona?

Because human beings always take center stage in design thinking and the persona to be created is very important, we sketched out the approach once more by way of example. When teams are tasked with developing “empathy” with a user over a certain period of time, or when they first apply design thinking, it is useful to specify a structure and the steps to be taken. Depending on the situation, we recommend using the tools just described (AEIOU, jobs-to-be-done framework, hook canvas, user profile canvas) or integrating and using other methods and documents into the steps listed here. To help you better understand this process, the Playbook is interspersed with various “How might we . . .” procedures.

1. Find the user

   Questions

   Who are the users?

   How many are there?

   What do they do?

   Methods

   Quantitative collection of data, AEIOU method

2. Building up a hypothesis

   Question

   What are the differences between the users?

   Methods

   Description of the groups ofsimilar users/segmentations

3. Confirmations

   Question

   Is there any data or evidence that confirms the hypothesis?

   Methods

   Quantitative collection of data, empathy map

4. Finding patterns

   Question

   Are the initial descriptions of the groups still correct? Are there other groups that might be important?

   Methods

   Categorization, applying the jobs-to-be-done framework

5. Creating personas

   Questions

   How can the persona be described?

   Methods

   Categorization,

   persona

6. Define situations

   Question

   What use cases does the persona have?

   What is the situation?

   Methods

   Searching for situations and needs

   User profile canvas/customer profile

   Customer journey

7. Validation

   Questions

   Do you know such a person?

   Methods

   Interviews with people who know the personas

   Reading and commenting on the persona description

8. Dissemination of knowledge

   Question

   How can we present the personas and share them with other team members, the enterprise, or stakeholders?

   Methods

   Posters, meetings, e-mails, campaigns, events, videos, photos

9. Creating scenarios

   Questions

   In a given situation and with a given objective: What happens when the persona uses the technology?

   Methods

   Narrative scenario—storytelling, descriptions of situations, and stories in order to create scenarios

   Application of hook canvas

10. Continuous further development

    Questions

    Is there any new information? Does the persona have to be newly described?

    Methods

    Usability test, continuous revision of the persona

EXPERT TIP
Future user

How do we map the user of the future?

Especially in radical innovation projects, the time horizon is often far longer. It may take 10 years before a product is launched on the market, for example. If its target group is 30 to 40 years old, this means that these users now are 20 to 30 years old.

The future user method attempts to extrapolate these users’ future personas (see “Playbook for Strategic Foresight and Innovation”). It expands the classic persona by analyzing today’s persona and its development over the last few years. In addition, the future target group is interviewed at their present age. Subsequently, the mindset, motivation, lifestyle, etc. are extrapolated to get a better idea of the future user.

The method is easy to apply. It is best to start with the profile of the current user and underpin it with facts, market analyses, online surveys, personal interviews, and so forth. When developing the persona, changes in values, lifestyle, use of technologies/media, product habits, and the like, must be borne in mind.

KEY LEARNINGS
Working with personas

• Use real people with real names and real properties.
• Be specific in terms of age and marital status. Get demographic information from the Internet.
• Draw the persona, in life-size, if possible.
• Add visualizations to the persona. Use clip outs from magazines for accessories (e.g. watch, car, jewelry).
• Identify and describe use cases in which they would use the potential product or services.
• Put the potential user in the context of the idea, his team, and the application.
• List pains and gains of the persona.
• Capture the customer tasks (jobs-to-be-done) that the product or service supports.
• Describe the experience that is particularly critical. Build a prototype that makes it possible to find out what is really critical.
• In so doing, try to take the persona’s habits into account.
• Try out tools for the definition of the content (e.g., user canvas and customer profile, hook canvas, future user, etc).

1.2 Why is process awareness key?

An important factor of success in design thinking is to know where you stand in the process. For Lilly, Peter, and even Marc, the transition from a divergent to a convergent phase is a special challenge:

At what point in time have we gathered sufficient information, and how many ideas are necessary before we begin to transform the cavalcade of ideas into possible solutions?

Alongside the current level of development, the tools must be constantly kept in mind in design thinking. Which of them are the most effective in the current situation? There are generally two mental states in the “hunt for the next big opportunity”: Either we develop many new ideas (i.e., we “diverge,”) or we focus on and limit ourselves to individual needs, functionalities, or potential solutions (i.e., we “converge”). This is usually depicted in the shape of a double diamond.

For Lilly, it is a little easier to meet this challenge, because she knows how long her design thinking course at the university lasts, and she can control, as early as with the definition of the design challenge, how open or restrictive the question should be (i.e., how broad the creative framework for the participants is to be). With regard to real problem statements, things are somewhat different. Normally, we force ourselves at the beginning to leave our comfort zone and define the creative framework broader than we actually wish to. In the divergent phase, the number of ideas is infinite, so to speak. The tricky part here is to wrap up this phase at the right time and focus on the most important functionalities that ultimately lead to an optimal user solution. Of course, there are many examples of all sorts of ideas being launched on the market, and chance contributes to success— well-known examples include a number of services offered by Twitter. But chance does not often work this way; hence, in the process, converging is decisive for success.

Steve Jobs was a master when it came to managing the “groan zone” optimally. He had the right instinct to choose the time for a change of mindset and for leaving the divergent phase. This way, he led his teams to brilliant solutions. At Apple, Bud Tribble established the term “reality distortion field,” standing for Steve Jobs’s ability to master the mental leap. The term stems from an episode of the original Star Trek series, “The Menagerie,” in which aliens create their own world by means of their thoughts.

EXPERT TIP
Optimal point in time to change the mindset

One good influencer that helps us change our mindset is a limited period of time. If the final deadline for an innovation project is pushed forward or the first prototype is expected earlier than scheduled, the mindset must be automatically changed as well. In addition, it is advisable to lay down the functionalities and characteristics in an early phase of the design thinking process. During the transition to the convergent phase, we take them up again and attempt to match them to a great number of varying ideas. This selection makes it possible to eliminate some ideas at this stage. It can be useful for consolidating or combining ideas into logical clusters. But, even then, we won’t be spared from selecting and focusing in the end. It is helpful during this phase to present the remaining ideas to other groups and participants. Then Post-its can be distributed, and the community can decide which is the best idea. If we only involve our own group, the decision is often not objective enough because we always risk falling in love with a certain idea. It’s up to you how ideas that have not entered the convergent phase ought to be dealt with. Some facilitators encourage participants to throw the ideas written on the Post-its on the ground, while others keep the ideas as a knowledge reservoir until the end of the project.

What does the design thinking micro cycle look like?

Before we deal with the process in greater depth, we need to clarify the various design thinking processes, which basically all pursue the same goal but use different terms. Basically, there’s a problem statement at the beginning and a solution at the end, and the solution is reached in an iterative procedure. The focus is decidedly on the human being, so design thinking is often referred to as Human-Centered-Design. Most people who have already grappled with design thinking know the process. Nonetheless, we decided to address briefly the phases in the micro cycle and the macro cycle as well as the core idea of each phase. Lilly would probably identify with the six-step depiction used at the HPI (Hasso Plattner Institute) that presents, as most universities do, the process of design thinking that follows. Subsequently, we will discuss the macro cycle.

At some universities, the process was simplified still more. In Japan, for instance, at the chair for Global Information Technology at Kanazawa Technical College, they work with four instead of six phases: Empathy—Analysis—Prototype—Co-Creation. D.school consolidates the process steps of “Understand” and “Observe” into “Develop empathy.”

The IDEO design and innovation agency had originally defined five simple steps in the micro cycle in order to get to new ideas through iterations. In addition, they put a strong focus on implementation, because the best ideas are ultimately of no use if we haven’t established them on the market as a successful innovation:

UNDERSTAND the task, the market, the clients, the technology, the limiting conditions, restrictions, and optimization criteria.

OBSERVE and ANALYZE the behavior of real people in real situations and in relation to the specific task.

VISUALIZE the first solution drafts (3D, simulation, prototypes, graphics, drawings, etc.).

EVALUATE and OPTIMIZE the prototypes in a fast succession of continuous repetitions.

IMPLEMENT the new concept in reality (the most time-consuming phase).

Anybody working at an actual business ought to know iterative procedures in a different context, such as from software development (ISO Standard 13407 or Scrum). In this case, the user suitability of software is ensured by an iterative process or improved incrementally through sprints.

In ISO 13407, the following phases are spoken of:

Planning, process—Analysis, use context—Specifications, user requirements—Prototype (draft of design variants)—Evaluation (evaluation of solutions and requirements)

With Scrum, the individual iterations are called sprints. One sprint takes 1 to 4 weeks. So-called product backlogs serve as inputs into the sprints. They are then prioritized and processed in the sprints (sprint backlogs). The requirements are documented in the form of user stories in the product backlog. A ready-to- deliver product that has already been tested with the user during the sprint is what should exist at the end of each sprint. In addition, the process itself is reviewed and continually improved in the Retrospective.

At most companies, a micro design thinking process is broken down into three to seven phases, often based on the steps of IDEO, d.school, and the HPI. The Swiss ICT company Swisscom has designed a simplified micro cycle that allows for integrating the mindset quickly into the organization.

The phases are: Hear—Create—Deliver.

EXPERT TIP
The design thinking micro cycle

DESCRIPTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL PHASES OF THE MICRO CYCLE

UNDERSTAND:

This phase was already touched upon in Chapter 1.1. Our starting point was not a goal to be achieved but a persona that has needs or is facing the challenge of having to solve a problem. Once the problem has been recognized, the problem statement must be defined at the right level of comfort. With two types of questions, we can either expand (WHY?) or narrow down (HOW?) the creative framework. The principle can be illustrated most easily on the basis of the need to educate ourselves further:

Alongside the problem statement, it is important to understand the overall context. Answering the six WH questions (who, why, what, when, where, how) yields fundamental insights:

•  Who is the target group (size, type, characteristics)?
•  Why does the user think he needs a solution?
•  What does the user propose as a solution?
•  When and for how long is the result needed (time span of the project or life cycle of the product)?
•  Where is the result going to be used (environment, media, location, country)?
•  How is the solution implemented (skills, budget, business model, go-to market)?

More on this in Chapters 1.4 and 1.5.

OBSERVE:

We have already initially dealt with the Observe phase to some extent. We tried to be experts and better understand the needs of our readers. We took a closer look at people from three different environments who apply design thinking and observed the groups of persons at work. To do so, we took advantage of various opportunities: at the HPI in Potsdam, at the d.school in Stanford, interacting with coaches from the ME310; in workshops with the DTP Community at Startup Challenges; in internal workshops at companies as well as in co-creation workshops with the objective of inspiring customers for digitization; and so on. It is always important to document and visualize these findings so they can be shared with others at a later time. So far, most of those involved in design thinking focus on the qualitative method of observation. Documentation is done by means of idea boards, vision boards, daily story based on photos, mind maps, mood pictures, and photos of life situations and people. All this is important information we can use to create and revise personas and to build up empathy for the user, as will be described in more detail in Chapter 1.5.

DEFINE POINT OF VIEW:

For the point of view, the important thing is to draw upon, interpret, and weight all the findings. The facilitator is urged to encourage all members of a group to talk about their experience. The goal is to establish a common knowledge base. This is done best by telling stories that have been experienced, showing pictures and describing the reactions and emotions of people. Again, the aim is to develop further or revise the personas in question. We will discuss this step in detail in Chapter 1.6.

IDEATE:

In the phase of Ideation, we can apply various methods and approaches that heighten creativity. Irrespective of this, we normally use brainstorming or the creation of sketches in this phase. The goal is to develop as many different concepts as possible and visualize them. We present a number of techniques for this in Chapter 1.7. The phase of Ideation is closely associated with the subsequent phases in which prototypes are built and tested. The next Expert Tip will give depth to this approach. In this phase, our primary goal is the step-by-step increase of creativity per iteration. Depending on the problem statement, a general brainstorming session on possible ideas can be held at the onset. Presenting individual tasks in a targeted manner for the brainstorming session has proven successful; this way, creativity and thus the entire diverging phase can be controlled. Examples include a brainstorming session on the critical functions, benchmarking with other industries or situations, and a dark horse that deliberately omits the actual situation or combines the best and worst ideas. A funky prototype that simply ignores all limiting factors can also generate ideas. We will specifically address the matter in the depiction of the macro cycle.

PROTOTYPE:

In the previous phase, we already pointed out the next steps of “Build prototype” and “Test prototype” because they are always connected to ideation. Chapter 1.9 will show what makes up a prototype.

At any rate, we should make our ideas tangible as early as possible and test them with potential users. This way, we receive important feedback for the improvement of ideas and prototypes. The motto of the options for action is simple: Love it, change it, or leave it.

TEST:

This phase comes after each developed prototype and/or after each drafted sketch. We can do the testing with colleagues, but the interaction with potential users is what’s really intriguing. Alongside traditional testing, it is possible today to use digital solutions for testing. Prototypes or individual functionalities can be tested quickly and with a large number of users. We will present these possibilities in Chapter 1.10. We receive mostly qualitative feedback from this phase. We should learn from these ideas and develop them further until we love our idea. Otherwise: discard or change.

REFLECT:

Before starting a new cycle of the iterative process, it is worthwhile to reflect upon the chosen direction. Reflection is best triggered by questioning whether the ideas and test results comply with claims of being socially acceptable and resource-efficient. With agile methods such as Scrum, the Reflect phase wraps up the process in retrospection. The process and the last iteration are reviewed, and a discussion follows on what went well and what should be improved. The questions can be played through in a “I like—I wish” feedback cycle, or feedback can be obtained in a structured way using a feedback capture grid. Naturally, we also use the Reflection phase to consolidate the findings if this hasn’t yet occurred in the Test phase.

We update the personas and, if necessary, other documents on the basis of these findings. In general, reflecting helps to explore new possibilities that might lead to better solutions or improve the processas a whole.

HOW MIGHT WE... run through the design thinking macro cycle?

In the micro cycle, we go through the phases of Understand, Observe, Define point of view, Find ideas, Develop prototype, and Test prototype. They must be seen as a unit. In the divergent phase, the number of ideas we gather through various creativity techniques increases constantly. Some of these ideas we want to make tangible in the form of prototypes and test with a potential user. The respective creativity methods and tools are used depending on the situation. The journey toward the ultimate solution is not certain at the onset.

The issue in the macro cycle is to understand the problem and concretize a vision of the solution. To do this, many iterations of the micro cycle are run through. The initial steps in the macro cycle are of a divergent character (steps 1-5 in the figure). In the case of simple problems or if the team possesses comprehensive knowledge of the market and the problem, the transition to the groan zone (step 6) can be pretty fast. Transition to the groan zone can be effected from any one of the five divergent steps. The sequence of ideas to be elaborated can and must be adapted to the situation and the project. The suggested sequence has been successfully applied in many projects, though. The vision of the solution or idea is concretized in the form of a vision prototype and tested with different users. If the vision gets generally positive feedback, it is concretized in the next iteration (step 7).

The hunt for the next big market opportunity often follows these steps:

(1) Initial ideas are worked out in a brainstorming session

An initial brainstorming session about potential ideas and solutions helps the group to place all sorts of ideas and get them off their collective chest. Frequently, the levels of knowledge of the individual team members in terms of the problem statement and a possible solution spectrum are quite different. An initial brainstorming session helps in approaching the task and learning how the others in the group think.

Instruction: Give the group 20 minutes for a brainstorming session. The issue here is quantity, not quality. Every idea is written on a Post it. When writing or sketching on the Post-it, the idea is expressed aloud; afterward, the note is stuck to a pin board.

Ask the group to answer the following key questions:

• Which ideas come to mind spontaneously?
• Which solution approaches are pursued by the others?
• What can we do differently?
• Do we all have the same understanding of the problem statement?

(2) Develop critical functionalities that are essential for the user

This step can be crucial for the solution. The facilitator has the task of motivating the groups so they identify exactly these “important things” and prepare a ranking in the context of a critical user.

Instruction: Give the group one to two hours—depending on the problem statement—to draft, build, and

test 10 to 20 critical functions.

Ask the group to answer the following key questions:

• Which functionalities are mandatory?
• What experience is absolutely necessary for the user?
• What is the relationship between the function and the experience?

(3) Find benchmarks from other industries and experiences

This step is a very good tool when teams are not able to tear themselves away from an original solution concept.

Benchmarking helps participants think outside the box and adapt ideas from these areas for the solution of the problem. The facilitator broadens the creative framework by motivating the groups to hold the brainstorming session, taking into account a certain industry/sector or a particular experience. You can proceed in two steps, for instance: (a) brainstorming of ideas relating to the problem, and (b) brainstorming of industries and/or experiences. Subsequently, the three best ideas from each step are identified. Based on the combination of these, the facilitator invites the participants to develop two or three ideas further, build them physically, and test them with the user.

Instruction: Give the group 30 minutes for a brainstorming session, 30 minutes for finding benchmarks, and 30 minutes for clustering and combining ideas. Depending on the task, the group is given enough time to build two to three prototypes.

Ask the group to answer the following key questions:

• Which successful concepts and experiences can be applied to the problem?
• Which experiences can illuminate the problem from another perspective?
• What is the relation between the problem and other experiences?

(4) Heighten creativity and find the dark horse among the ideas

This step helps many teams to boost creativity further—not least because, for the dark horse, borders are lifted, which might have limited us in the previous steps. The facilitator motivates the groups to strive for maximum success and thus develop a radical idea. Now the time has come for the teams to heighten creativity and accept the maximum risk. One possibility for the creation of a dark horse is to omit essential elements of a given situation, such as,  “How would you design an IT service desk without IT problems?” “What does a windshield wiper look like without a windshield?” or “What would a cemetery look like if no one died?” The main point is to leave the comfort zone and “do it in any case,” no matter what will occur.

Instruction: Give the group 50 minutes to build a dark horse and enough time for building a corresponding prototype depending on the task.

Ask the group to answer the following key questions:

• Which radical possibilities have not been considered thus far?
• Which experiences lie outside anything imaginable?
• Are there products and services that would expand value creation?

(5) Implementation of a funky prototype to give free rein to creativity

In many cases, you have to go one step further because the team has not come up with disruptive ideas so far. The building of a funky prototype cranks up creativity one more notch. It encourages the teams to maximize the learning success and at the same time minimize costs in terms of time and attention. The goal is to develop solutions that mainly focus on the benefit. Potential costs and any budget restrictions are completely removed.

Instruction: Give the group an hour to build a funky prototype.

Ask the group to answer the following key questions:

• What crazy ideas are super cool?
• For which idea would you have to ask forgiveness in the end?
• What does an idea look like that is realized ad hoc and has not been planned?

(6) Determine the vision of the idea with the vision prototype

The groan zone is the transition from the convergent to the divergent phase. The phases can be changed at any time. Experienced facilitators and innovation champions recognize this point in time and lead their teams in a targeted way to the convergent phase. In the vision prototype, we make an initial combination of

• prior knowledge (caution is advisable here),
• best initial ideas,
• most important critical functionalities,
• new ideas of other industries and experience,
• initial user experience,
• intriguing insights (e.g., from the dark horse), and
• the simplest possible solution.

Instruction: Give the group about two hours (depending on the complexity of the problem) for building a vision prototype. It should then be tested with at least three potential users; the feedback is to be captured in detail. In the best-case scenario, these users are then involved in the subsequent concretization of the design thinking project. If so-called lead users are known in a field of innovation, they are perfect as references because they are often highly motivated to satisfy their needs.

Ask the group to answer the following key questions:

• Does the vision generate enough attention so a potential user absolutely wants to use this solution?
• Does the vision give sufficient leeway for a user’s dreams?
• Is the value offer of the vision convincing?
• What else would the users wish for in order to make the experience perfect?

(7) Concretize the vision step by step

In the following convergent phase, we want to focus on the concretization of the vision. The theme of this phase is the specific elaboration of the selected idea. It is iteratively improved and expanded. It is advisable here first to build and test the most important critical functionalities as integral parts of a functional prototype. With this prototype as a starting point, more elements are supplemented and finally the prototype is built. Different ideas can be tested in the convergent phase, and the best ones are integrated into the ultimate solution. Individual features or various combinations can be developed and tested, for instance. Once the prototype has a certain maturity, we can describe it in a “prototype vision canvas.” This way, we can formulate and compare various visions.

It is all about the iterative detailing and elaboration of the selected idea.

The maturity of the prototypes increases with every individual step.

A. Functional prototype

With respect to the functional prototype, it is important to concentrate on the critical variables and test them intensively with potential users. Critical functions must be created for critical experiences. Not all functionalities must be integrated at the onset. The crucial point is to ensure minimum functionality in order to test the prototype under real conditions. These prototypes are frequently referred to as “minimal viable product” (MVP). These MVPs serve as a foundation to build upon, and step by step a finished prototype emerges that combines several functions.

B. Finished prototype

The creation of a finished prototype is crucial for the interaction with the user, because only reality yields truth. Enough time must be scheduled for building a finished prototype, and the respective functionalities must be integrated.

C. Final prototype

The final prototype excels by the elegance of the thoughts invested in it as well as in its realization. Prototypes that are convincing with simple functionality are usually also successful when launched on the market. It is advisable to obtain as much support from suppliers and partners in any and every possible way. The use of standard components increases the likelihood of success and massively reduces development costs.

D. Implementation plan: How to bring it home

Not only the quality of the product or service is decisive, but also its implementation. Important things to know: Who might put obstacles in the way of the implementation process and try to influence decisions? The credo: Turn those affected into people who are involved and create a win-win situation for all parties. Chapter 3.4 describes what is important in the implementation process.

KEY LEARNINGS
Keeping a grip on the process

• Define a problem statement on the right level.
• Leave the comfort zone (as often as possible) if you want radical innovations to emerge.
• Develop awareness of the groan zone in the macro cycle, because it is decisive for the future success of the generated ideas.
• Create clarity on the team about whether the divergent or convergent mindset is currently at center stage.
• Use different methods in the divergent phase for brainstorming in order to heighten creativity (e.g., benchmarking, funky prototype, dark horse).
• Generate as many ideas as possible in the divergent phase by applying different creativity techniques.
• Always follow the sequence of “Design—Build—Test” in the micro cycle.
• Find the final prototype through converging and the respective iterations.
• Don’t develop emotional ties to prototypes and ideas. Discard bad ideas.
• What applies to all ideas: Love it, change it, or leave it!

1.3 How to get a good problem statement

At the beginning, Peter didn’t understand why it’s important to have a good problem definition in design thinking. After all, he wanted to find good solutions and not make the problems worse. During his first tentative steps as a facilitator for design thinking workshops, though, he quickly noticed, just how important the problem definition is. He realized there are three essential prerequisites for good solutions:

1. The design thinking team must have understood the problem.
2. The design challenge must be defined to allow for the development of useful solutions.
3. The potential solution must fit the defined design space and design scope.

We break down problems into three types: simple (well-defined), poorly defined (ill-defined) and complex (wicked). For simple and clearly defined problems, there is one correct solution, but the solution strategy can follow different paths. Most problems we encounter in design thinking and in our daily work are ill-defined problems, however. They can be remedied with more than just one correct solution, and the search for such a solution can take place in quite different ways. From our experience, we nevertheless know that these problems can be rendered graspable and easily processed. Often it’s enough to reduce the creative framework or sometimes widen it a bit to get to the right level that allows new market opportunities to emerge.

Repeatedly asking “Why?” expands the creative framework; asking “How?” scales it down. In the Introduction, we briefly referred to the question of how we would tackle the issue of further training with design thinking. Designing a better can opener that everybody in the family likes using is another simple example of a design challenge.

To expand the problem statement, we pose the question of “Why?”. Quickly we realize that repeatedly asking why brings us to the limits of our comfort zone in no time at all, so that we are actually moving toward earth-shaking and difficult-to-solve problems, so-called wicked problems. In terms of the can opener, examples of such problems are:

• How can we stop hunger in the world?
• How can we prevent so much food from being thrown away?

To narrow down alternative solutions, it helps to ask “How?” With regard to the can opener:

• How can the can be opened with a rotating mechanism? or:
• How can the can be opened without any additional device?

Regarding wicked problems, the actual issue is often not obvious, so preliminary problem definitions are used. This leads to an understanding of the solution that changes the understanding of the problem again. So there are iterations already in the problem definition that can help interpret the understanding of the problem as well as of the solution. Only short-term or provisional solutions are largely found by way of this co-evolution, though. The use of linear and analytical problem-solving procedures quickly makes you hit your limits in terms of wicked problems: Because the problem is the search for the problem, you’re pulled every which way.

Fortunately, relevant tools for this were discovered in design thinking over the years, such as the question of “How might we . . .?” or a technique regarding “why” questions. Thus design thinking helps to make wicked problems graspable. If no solutions are found despite the use of design thinking due to the complexity of the problems, limited resources such as money and time are usually the reasons for the termination of the process. This is why we recommend devoting enough time and energy to work out the definition of a suitable problem definition.

To which types of problems can design thinking be applied?

Design thinking is suitable for all types of problem statements. Applications range from products and services to processes and individual functions, all the way to comprehensive customer experiences. But the goals people want to achieve with it differ. A product designer wants to satisfy customer needs, while an engineer is more interested in defining the specifications.

EXPERT TIP
Finding the design challenge

In her design thinking courses, Lilly often has difficulty finding good design challenges. If the design challenges come from industry partners, the creative framework is usually more or less set. In cases where the participants must identify problems on their own, things get more complex. The following options have proven quite useful for identifying problems and defining design challenges:

How might we improve the customer-experience chain of places and things that are visited or used daily?

Examples:

• How might we improve the online shopping experience of a shoe retailer?
• How might we improve the online booking portal for the car ferry from A to B?
• How might we improve customer satisfaction with the ticket app for public transport in Singapore?

Another possibility for getting to a design challenge is to change perspective. These questions help capture the design challenge:

• What if . . .?
• What might be possible?
• What would change behavior?
• What would be an offer if business ecosystems connected with each other?
• What is the impact of a promotion?
• What will happen afterward?
• Are there any opportunities where other people only see problems?

Another possibility is to take a closer look at an existing product or service (e.g., the customer experience chain when buying a music subscription). By asking questions and observing, we get hints for a design challenge:

• What does the music behavior of a user look like?
• How does the customer get information on new music offerings?
• How and where will the customer install the product or service?
• How does the customer use the product?
• How does the customer act when the product does not work as expected?
• How satisfied is the customer with the entire customer experience chain?

EXPERT TIP
Drawing up the design brief

The description of the design challenge is definitive. As we remarked, a good solution can only come about if the design thinking team has understood the problem.

The description of the challenge must be seen as a minimum requirement. Further details help to expedite the problem solving. The disadvantage here is that the degree of freedom in relation to the radicalism of a new solution is limited. The creation of a good design brief (short profile of the project) is already a small design thinking project in itself. Sometimes, we draw up the design brief for our users, sometimes for the design thinking team. We recommend you get different opinions—preferably on an interdisciplinary basis—about the problem and then agree, through iterations, on statements that really make up the problem.

The design brief contains various elements and can provide information on core questions:

Definition of design space and design scope:

• Which activities are to be supported and for whom?
• What do we want to learn about the user?

Description of already existing approaches to solving the problem:

• What already exists, and how can elements of it help with our own solution?
• What is missing in existing solutions?

Definition of the design principles:

• What are important hints for the team (e.g., at which point more creativity is demanded or that potential users should really try out a certain feature)?
• Are there any limitations, and which core functions are essential?
• Whom do we want to involve, and at what point in the design process?

Definition of scenarios that are associated with the solution:

• What does a desirable future and vision look like?
• Which scenarios are plausible and possible?

Definition of the next steps and milestones:

• By when should a solution have been worked out?
• Are there steering committee meetings from which we can get valuable feedback?

Information on potential implementation challenges:

• Who must be involved at an early stage?
• What is the culture like for dealing with radical solution proposals, and how great is its willingness to take risks?

A design brief is the translation of a problem into a structured task:

HOW MIGHT WE... start, although the problem is elusive?

In principle, the ideal starting point is where we leave the comfort zone. To find the right starting point based on a problem statement is not very easy. Often the team wonders whether the starting point is too narrow or too broad. In such a case, we recommend just starting. If the challenge is too narrowly conceived, the team will expand the problem in the first iteration. If the challenge is conceived too broadly, the team will narrow it down.

Do we want to improve the cap of a ball-point pen or do we want to solve the world’s water problem?

The procedure consists of three steps.

Step 1:

Who is the user in the context of the problem statement?

Define who the user really is and what his needs are.

Reflect on the created persona.

Step 2:

Apply the WH questions. Discuss the WHY, the WHAT, and the HOW.

Step 3:

Based on this, formulate your question.

As described, the “why” and the “how” questions can expand or narrow down the framework. A natural adjustment often takes place in a brainstorming session, especially if various methods are used in brainstorming, such as transforming and combining or even minimizing.

Let’s take the example of a BIC ballpoint pen and the method of leaving out or reducing. For the BIC ballpoint pen, everything that was unnecessary was left out. All that was left in the end were three indispensable, essential parts: the refill, the holder, and a cap that also serves as a clip. An ingenious product that has remained unaltered for more than 50 years.

Is there even any room left for innovation?

The answer is: Yes! Perhaps you have already asked yourself before why the cap of the BIC ballpoint pen has a hole at the tip. The hole was not always there. It was designed to prevent small children from suffocating if they swallow the cap and it gets stuck in their windpipe. Sufficient air can still get through the little hole. This is why BIC pen caps have had holes for more than 24 years.

KEY LEARNINGS
Draw up the problem definition

• Question in the form of “Why?” and “How might we?” in order to grasp and understand the problem.
• Clarify what type of a problem it is: wicked, ill-defined, or well-defined. Adjust your approach accordingly.
• In the case of wicked problems, first find partial solutions for a partial problem. Proceed iteratively.
• Understand further partial aspects of the overall problem if it can’t be understood at once, and iteratively add more solution components.
• Draw up a structured design brief so that the team and the client have the same understanding of the starting point.
• Make use of different possibilities of finding the design challenge (e.g., investigation of the entire customer experience chain or a change of perspective).
• Begin with the first iteration even if the ideal starting area has not been found yet. This way, the problem can often be understood better.

1.4 How to discover user needs

Priya has a new innovation project. Rumors have it that the Internet and technology giant where Priya is working will embrace the theme of health for seniors—a theme and a segment about which Priya knows little and which, for her personally, is still pretty remote. Actually, Priya has little time for taking the needs of seniors into consideration alongside her numerous other projects. Her work environment teems with people in their mid-twenties; hardly anyone has yet crossed the threshold of 50 and can be classed even remotely in this segment. Her friends and acquaintances in Zurich are all between 30 and 40 years old, and her parents are still working full time and don’t feel they belong in the user group of retirees. Her grandparents, whom Priya could ask, have unfortunately passed away.

How can we carry out a needfinding when we actually have no time for it? Or better: How do we explain to the boss that we won’t come to work today?

Priya is aware that the personal contact with potential users—that is, people—is indispensable if you really want to live good design thinking.

Omitting the needfinding is not an option for Priya, because it would mean skipping over an entire phase of the design thinking process. Because the phases of understanding and observing as well as the synthesis (defining the point of view) cannot be strictly separated from one another, ignoring needfinding would mean omitting no fewer than three steps.

All these steps have an important feature in common: the direct contact with the users, the target group of people who will use an innovative product or our service regularly in the future.

It is an illusion to think that we are familiar with the lifestyles of all the people for which we develop innovations day after day. Let’s take a look at all the projects Lilly has gone through over the last four years as a needfinding expert: She would have had to be old, visually impaired, lesbian, a kindergartener, or even an illegal immigrant. Not to mention the project concerning a palliative care ward that inevitably would have catapulted Lilly into her deathbed. That certainly didn’t happen to Lilly. At least not at the time when her task was to innovate everyday life for these people in the final hours of life and the procedures at a palliative care ward.

It is important to reflect on ourselves and realize we don’t represent the people for whom we develop our innovation. If we do, in very exceptional cases, we must proceed with great caution when transferring our needs onto others.

Peter also questions his ideas for improving the quality of his product when he is sitting at his desk, doing nothing. When was the last time he saw somebody using his product in daily life? Has he ever stood next to a customer at the exact moment when the customer felt the need for the now newly invented function? Not because Peter had asked the customer (“Would you like . . .”) but because the customer had searched for this function on his own. Such moments give us an insight into the lives of users and indicate where deep and long-term needs are hidden.

Not knowing the everyday life of people means we continually make assumptions on which we base our decisions. About eight million people live in Switzerland. If Priya, who lives in Zurich today, claimed she knows exactly how the residents in a small village live, then her knowledge is solely based on the experience of her youth when she lived in a village in India, that was about the same size at that time. Although her experience gives her access to certain aspects of village life, she is incapable of developing a perfect solution that covers the majority of needs of villagers in today’s Switzerland.

It stands to reason that an innovation only works when we have internalized the needs of our users and developed a thorough understanding of them. It can be achieved when we are where they are, especially when we witness the part of their life we want to improve. If you now think we’ll present even more tools to observe people in their environment, you’re wrong. Such tools can help us, but ultimately it is all a matter of one decisive point in needfinding: Find out which assumptions you have made in your mind and become aware of them.

In the everyday work of a company, it is a common phenomenon that innovation managers work on ideas that are not based on real needs. Often, when we ask them what doesn’t work in the everyday life of a person that would give their ideas real added value, we are met with a blank stare. In such cases, it is useless to send out the innovation managers, because they don’t know what they should see and hear. So needfinding does not take place in many companies and is inevitably seen as a waste of time and money.

Many traditional management and innovation consultants rely on so-called customer interviews conducted not by the consultant himself or a market research institute tasked by him. The consultant then picks and chooses from the interviews only those things that match what he has seen or heard and that fit into the reality he has developed over a lifetime. Thus, not infrequently, decisions makers see needfinding as a risk to the success of their project.

If we succeed in embodying an attitude of pure curiosity in needfinding, we find that everything we learn can guide us to new and even more human-centered solutions. In needfinding, we recognize things that still don’t work, maybe that never will work, or that we must watch very closely so that, in the end, our innovation meets a need.

HOW MIGHT WE...free ourselves of assumptions in needfinding?

There are a couple of good tricks that help free you of assumptions. Especially when dealing with needfinding for the first time, the following exercise, which doesn’t take longer than 30 minutes, is highly recommended. When we have somebody who confronts us with tricky questions in this exercise, we will be all the more effective.

The purpose of this method line is to show how assumptions and hypotheses about needs can be made visible and how we succeed in prioritizing critical assumptions. This creates a starting point that enables us to realize a focused and, hence, more successful user interaction.

The starting point is that we have already built an initial simple prototype. Hence the phase of ideation has been concluded for now because we have already found a potential solution for a user need. Within the scope of her “health for seniors” project, Priya has identified the theme of exercise as an approach to a solution.

1. We formulate our idea in one sentence:

For example:

Senior walks for retired “couch potatoes.”

Then we visualize our idea:

2. We formulate the need assumptions of our idea:

As we know, needs are the actual motivations of people. They emerge from the desire to make something possible that does not exist (in our example: staying healthy) or to get rid of something not wanted (e.g., losing weight). In design thinking, we often define these needs as verbs. Needs refer to WHAT the user wants to achieve—we consciously put aside solution-oriented thinking, which is focused on the HOW.

To identify need assumptions, we first ask the following questions:

• What does the user want to achieve by applying our idea?
• What motivates the user to use our idea?
• What prevents the user from using our idea?

Possible answers include:

1. Couch potatoes want to exercise (need) in order to prevent chronic diseases (need).
2. Retirees don’t have the necessary daily structure (trigger) to exercise on a regular basis (need).
3. Senior citizens want to feel healthy (need) so they can go on excursions with their grandchildren.
4. Senior citizens feel uncomfortable (emotional state/blocker) when they exercise at the fitness center together with young people.

Write each of these assumptions on a separate Post-it.

Then you can place the Post-its on a grid in step 5.

3. We identify the critical assumptions:

First of all, it is important for us to take a few minutes to reflect upon our assumptions of needs.

What will we recognize in this phase of reflection? Perhaps we recognize we’ve dealt with the basic needs of our potential innovation—often, a wonderful crop of assumptions on which we have built our solution! Now these needs must be reviewed and adapted, if necessary.

With this exercise, we are confronted with the basis of our ideas without having heard or seen whether a potential user actually has a need for such an innovation in his everyday life.

Maybe we have found a couple of colleagues from among our friends who think our solution is good. Now it would be exciting for us to find out whether the parents and grandparents of our friends really have these problems in everyday life. With this step, we have gotten very close to our user. At the same time, we must be aware that we are still dealing with assumptions. We have not yet heard or seen whether these needs actually exist out there in real life.

We’ll have no choice but to review these needs—this time, not with our work colleagues! We must observe and interview people who are not close to us and who won’t react positively to our ideas because they like us or don’t want to dampen our enthusiasm.

4. We are ready for random encounters:

What would we ask users in our target group if we met them by chance on the street now? In order to be prepared, we should seriously consider what question would we use to approach somebody to tell us about their everyday life. Priya, for example, ought to think about where and when she can meet retirees during the week in their everyday lives (e.g., shopping, on a trip, on the train, at the bus stop, etc.). The good news for Priya is that she doesn’t have to take a single day off to conduct a needfinding. She can simply integrate it into her everyday life.

What is needfinding really about?

We must leave our comfort zone and speak to people in order to get a look at ideas from a new angle. We must be willing to learn new things and stay curious, enriching our knowledge step by step.

5. We review the critical assumptions first:

We should ask ourselves about which assumptions we know least and which are most critical for our idea. It’s best we review these assumptions first.

If these assumptions do not exist in everyday life, we have built our solution idea on a mental castle in the air. This is not so bad, because the sooner we recognize it, the better it is for us. It saves a lot of money, time, and energy. We can use the freed-up resources to hunt for the next big market opportunity.

The review of the critical assumptions can be structured in the shape of four quadrants. Using the dimensions of “incidental” versus “decisive” and “knowing” versus “ignorant” has served us well in the past.

HOW MIGHT WE... conduct a needfinding interview?

Every interview should have a logical sequence. We recommend planning the course of the interview in advance and then reflecting upon it.

With proper preparation, you become calmer, and this makes it easier for you to gain the trust of the interviewee. A typical needfinding conversation might look like this:

1. Introduction

First, we introduce ourselves and explain the reason for the request as well as the course of the interview. In so doing, we emphasize that there is no “true” or “false” and ask whether we are allowed to document the interview (e.g., video, photos, or audio recording). The main point is to create an atmosphere in which the respondent feels comfortable. Respondents must have the feeling they are appreciated and understand that their knowledge and experience are valuable to us.

2. Actual beginning

The interviewees can also introduce themselves at the beginning, so a simple reference to the problem is easily established. We commence the interview with a general and open question about the actual theme. Based on the answer, we go deeper with questions that expand and clarify the issue. What’s important is that the people questioned feel comfortable and we win their trust.

3.Create reference

We try to find a recent example that the person remembers well. This way, we bring the person closer to the topic and the problems. It might happen that not all the problems or critical experiences are expressed in this example or on the same day. Continue to build trust, assure the interviewees that their answers are important, good, and helpful to us. If the desired depth is not reached yet, we are patient and ask for more experiences and stories.

4. Grand tour

Deepen other critical topics and search for contradictions. Get to the bottom of details if possible. This can refer to both tangible and emotional facts. We have reached our goal when things that were hidden come to light. If the interviewees trust us, they can open up and share exciting stories and needs with us that would have remained hidden in a normal interview.

5. Reflection

We pause for a moment and then come to the end of the interview. We express our gratitude for the important findings and summarize the main points from our point of view. Often, the person interviewed adds important things, points out inconsistencies, and emphasizes important items. At this point, we can ask the “why” question and dig deeper, if necessary. In this phase, we are free to switch to a more general level in order to discuss explanations or theories on the matter under discussion.

6. Wrap-up

Don’t turn off the recording device yet! Often, the most intriguing things occur at the very end, so we should give the end enough space and time. We thank the interviewee again for the conversation, the time spent with us, and the insights we gained. We give the interviewee the opportunity to ask us questions. After the interview, we reflect on it by summarizing the most important findings, both in terms of content and approach.

EXPERT TIP
Ask open questions in needfinding

Most people are uncomfortable asking open-ended questions. The situation happens every day, and most of us are familiar with it:

Priya waits for tram 5 in front of the Pension Management Institute in Zurich. The waiting time amounts to 9 minutes. An elderly lady is standing next to Priya, also waiting for tram 5 and looking rather bored. At that moment, Priya can think of a thousand reasons why needfinding doesn’t bring any added value anyway and that she will probably find another elderly lady at the tram stop tomorrow. Most of us feel the same as Priya during this phase. Nearly everybody feels uncomfortable and even a little embarrassed to approach strangers. Priya is definitely not alone in this respect. But what can really happen to her? She is merely interested in the lives of others so as to enrich her idea with knowledge and deepen her insights.

Priya works up the courage to start a conversation, but how should she begin and how would she place her questions?

Of course, Priya’s primary goal should be to ask her questions in such a way that the elderly lady tells her something about herself and her exercise habits in everyday life. We have found it rather useful to create a question map in advance. Now you might justifiably ask, why not use a questionnaire like the colleagues from strategy consulting do? A questionnaire has a linear structure. We begin with the first question at the top and work our way down. In a conversation, though, we do not think and answer in a linear way but ad hoc. The map helps us visualize topical islands that provide orientation in the interview.

On Priya’s theme map, one question is what motivates the elderly lady to do sports. In addition: What types of exercising inspire the lady? What does it take for her to be happy?

Now it is important for Priya to listen carefully when the lady begins to talk about her life. During the conversation, Priya should write down important information. At the same time, making notes expresses a certain appreciation of the elderly lady—an indirect compliment that she enjoys for sure.

Priya writes down the lady’s statements in her exact words, such as, “I like exercising in the morning because it stimulates me mentally.” If she only writes down keywords, Priya will have to make up the statements later on or invent context. Priya can then compare the statements provided by different respondents in the synthesis and recognize similarities as well as differences. She can also integrate the sentences perfectly into her persona, lending it an authentic voice this way.

After each interview and each observation, we should ask ourselves some key questions:

• Where did the person reveal the biggest problems?
• What is the need behind the problem?
• What innovation would make everyday life easier for this person?

This is also referred to as situation-inspired ideation. We outline the ideas and thoughts that emerge directly during the needfinding. Priya could also write down supplementary questions she comes up with over the course of time when she is in different situations (e.g., whether seniors living in the country exercise more often). This way, Priya enriches her question map and extends her question horizon.

Whenever possible, open questions should be asked in a needfinding interview. This general list helps us to prepare the interview:

Tracing behaviors

• “Why do you smile when you say that?”
• “How did it happen that . . .?” / “Who has taught you that?”
• “How do you know how it works?”
• “What works?” / “What doesn’t work?”

Gaining clarity

• “What exactly do you mean by . . .?”
• “How would you describe it in your own words?”

Exploring actively

• “You say this is difficult. What exactly was/is difficult about it?”
• “A difficult task. Why exactly is it difficult for you?”

Asking about the sequence (day/week/period of life)

• “What is your first memory of . . .?”
• “What happened before/afterward?”
• “How did you do it before?”
• “When was the first/last time that you . . .?”

Asking for examples

• “What was the last app you downloaded?”
• “With whom did you discuss it?”

Exploring exceptions

• “When didn’t it work, then?”
• “Did you have problems with . . . before?”

Understanding connections and relations

• “How do you communicate with . . .?”
• “From whom did you hear that?”
• “Who helped you with it?”
• “How did you hear of it?”

Informing outsiders

• “If you had to explain it to an exchange student, what would you say?”
• “How would you explain this to your grandparents?”
• “How would you describe it to a small child?”

Comparing processes

• “What is the difference between your home and that of your friend?”
• “What is the difference when you do this on the road instead of at home?”

Imagining the future

• “How do you think you’ll do it in 2030?”
• (What if it were like that already today?)

EXPERT TIP
Involve lead users as innovators

The observation and questioning of lead users (users or customers leading the trend) can help to identify future customer needs. In addition, lead users can be drawn upon as another source for understanding customer needs, and their experience can be integrated in the empathy mode of design thinking.

The term “lead user” was coined by Eric von Hippel. According to the definition, lead users are users who have the needs and requirements earlier than the mass market and hope for a particularly high benefit and competitive edge from the possible satisfaction of the need or solution of the problem. Lead users have developed many major innovations themselves. These include the mountain bike, the hyperlink structure of the World Wide Web, and GEOX shoes. Lead users have a strong drive to solve a certain problem they have. This state drives them to innovations, which they often actually realize in the form of interim solutions or prototypes.

We propose an easy to follow, three-step approach to involve lead users:

Step 1: We identify needs and trends

• Scanning of secondary sources (future researchers, trend reports, trend scouting, etc.) for early
• trends, research directions, market experts and technology experts
• Preliminary determination of important early trends and future needs in early phases

Step 2: We search for lead users and lead experts

• Search for lead users and lead experts in the target market
• Identify analogous markets by abstracting your own questions and topics and transferring them

Step 3: We develop solution concepts

• As a last phase, rudimentary solution ideas identified thus far are finally developed into strong innovation concepts in a large workshop together with lead users, lead experts, internal marketing, and technicians.
• In the framework of co-creation, it is useful to involve the lead users heavily in the development and prototype process.

Lilly has read the book Crossing the Chasm (Geoffrey Moore). When selecting lead users and adapting the solution to the needs of the lead users, she is aware that there is probably a gap between the needs of the lead users, early adopters, and the early majority. This is why she always attempts to recognize the needs of “normal” customers in her workshops. With regard to the ultimate solution, it is then important not to forget the needs of the early majority.

Peter has been on projects that focused far too much on the needs of lead users—in the end, a product emerged that was given the sobriquet of “white elephant.” Such projects have high risk and low likelihood of implementation and are hard to stop. Unfortunately, in some cases, there are only a few customers for a solution that was deemed quite interesting by many lead users.

EXPERT TIP
How to dig deeper

For us to be able to take a peek behind the scenes of our users, we must be able to build up a deep-rooted empathy with them. Various methods and tools that go beyond pure observation can help to achieve this. At this point, it is important to emphasize again that we can recognize the real needs of our users only when we go to work with the right attitude. We summarize:

EXPERT TIP
The 6 WH questions

As we have seen, the WH questions help in the divergent phase to gain a basic overview and in-depth insights. WH questions help to get better information, thus comprehend the problem or situation better.

Especially in the first few design thinking phases, the WH questions are of vital importance.

They help us make concrete observations in a specific situation and thus discover more emotions and motives. In addition, the WH questions help analyze and scrutinize information already gathered.

1. Create a set of WH questions.
2. Make a list of possible sub-questions.
3. Try to answer all WH questions.
4. If a WH question does not make sense in the context of the problem, skip it.
5. If the WH questions were used with the user in the context of a problem interview, try to dig deeper by probing and repeating questions.
6. Try to find more than one answer to every question. Conflicting answers can be of particular interest and should be amplified more deeply together with the user.
7. Evaluate the answers only at the end and filter the statements according to their relevance to the solution.

HOW MIGHT WE...reflect on our own behavior and assumptions?

The task now is to reflect on what we have heard and seen as well as our own behavior. This transition helps to improve the process continuously.

The reflection proceeds along three steps:

First step: Reflect upon the user and the need.

What have we learned in relation to the project?

We ask ourselves these project-related questions:

• How do people think and act in everyday life?
• What is done differently than we imagined?
• What surprises us (“Eureka!” moments)?
• Is there a need that is worth being solved?

Second step: Is our solution the right one?

In a second step, we check whether our solution feels right. Is it really true that we don’t have to change anything for our idea to work in everyday life? What would we change so that our innovation is used in everyday life?

Priya, for example, quickly realizes that her view of the solution has expanded by asking questions and reflecting upon things.

Now Priya’s arguments are no longer based on her assumptions but on the things she has heard and seen, as well as on knowledge she has collected. She has a solid idea of how it really feels to be at an advanced age and wishing for a healthy life.

After having expanded the perspective on a topic, we can now go back to ideation. We iterate our original solution based on interactions with the potential users. An iteration means to improve something in an existing idea or to build a completely new prototype.

Third step: Were our approach and the kind of questions right?

In a final step, we check whether our approach was right. Did the way we posed our questions come across well? Was our documentation of any use later? This way, we see what was good, where we should improve things, and what we still should try out.

KEY LEARNINGS
Recognizing user needs

• Find the persona in real life and interview them.
• Forget all initial assumptions on ideas for a product or service and focus on the user behavior.
• Observe and listen carefully in conversation with a potential user.
• Document the observations exactly so you will be able to correct assumptions made.
• Walk in the user’s footsteps; accompany him for a day in his daily life.
• Identify extreme users as well; for example, there are seniors who do strenuous sports even at a very old age.
• Review your experience with other users iteratively and never stop being curious about their real needs.
• Plan and prepare the needfinding interview diligently. Create a question map for an open interview.
• Ask many WH questions and pay attention to contradictions in the answers. Use the 6 WH question method.
• Pay attention to the end; it might still yield important insights.
• Use lead users to recognize future needs at an earlier stage—selection of the right lead users is crucial here.
• Take a look behind the scenes; dig deeper and combine various methods, such as participatory observation and extreme user or expert discussions.

1.5 How to build empathy with the user

In the needfinding revolving around the theme of “health for seniors,” Priya has realized how important it is to develop empathy for a target group. Empathy is the ability and willingness to recognize and understand the thoughts, emotions, motives, and personality traits of another person. By definition, design thinking is an empathetic, optimistic, and creative way of working to shape the future. When we look at any number of offers for seniors on the market, we can see that frequently neither empathy for seniors nor an optimistic basic attitude exists. Retirees do not want to be referred to as “generation 65+,” “best agers,” or as a target group in the “silver markets.” Neither do they want to book a trip for seniors on the Internet or be invited to “exercises for seniors.” Retirees are not interested in illnesses. They want to stay healthy and mobile. In most cases, they feel up to fifteen years younger than they actually are. If you don’t want to make the same mistakes and in the end deliver a brilliant performance with a major flop on the market, empathy with the users is elementary.

How can we build empathy with the potential user (by way of the example of “seniors”)?

Priya already has an idea for it. She has developed a prototype smartphone for seniors. It has a simple interface to a blood pressure measurement device. The prototype, named the “ImedHeinz,” is a little clunky, due to the large keys and an analog interface to the blood pressure measurement device. The enclosure for the smartphone is reminiscent of the smart pocket calculators from the 1980s.

Priya wants to test the prototype in an environment of seniors and pays a visit to the “Shady Pine Tree” retirement home. In the dining room, she meets Anna: 70 years old, fit mentally, using a wheelchair due to a stroke, which has prompted her to move from her townhouse to the retirement home. Priya confronts Anna with the prototype of her ImedHeinz smartphone. Anna’s response is a horrified look. To excite a little enthusiasm in Anna, Priya shows her, quite euphorically, how quickly the data from the blood pressure measuring device can be transmitted to the Heinz. Anna does not show any enthusiasm whatsoever.

This brings Priya down to earth somewhat; she leans back in her chair, and her gaze wanders to the other seniors in the dining room. Richard, sitting at the back of the room, is playing chess on his tablet; Elizabeth is exchanging WhatsApp messages with her grandson in New York City on an iPhone. Anna takes Priya’s hand and says she is a great iPhone fan, too, and that she is looking forward to her new, gilded iPhone that would match her jewelry so well.

Priya has learned a lot this afternoon. The basic prerequisite for empathetic needfinding is the immediate proximity to the customers (seniors) as well as the readiness to engage with your interlocutor and to try to experience the world through another person’s eyes. It takes courage and strength to step back from known standards and views of the world—but without it, needfinding and the empathy with a potential user it requires can hardly take place.

HOW MIGHT WE...experience, understand, and feel like the customer?

1. UNDERSTAND THE LANGUAGE OF THE CUSTOMER

Misunderstandings are often based on everyday problems. Depending on many aspects such as family background, lifestyle, values, and context, people think and act in the most varied ways. Perceiving these nuances from the start gives us insights into the lives of our users that constitute the cornerstones of successful innovations.

How can we better understand the language of the customer?

We listen actively and ask about words that can be understood in different ways. For example, what do we mean when we speak of “resources”? The word might refer to time, material, or even people. We can only know what our interlocutor means if we have him explain it to us.

If we observe some conspicuous theatrics, the time has come to dig deeper. If our interlocutor talks about an “incredibly exciting” situation, for instance, but rolls his eyes at the same time—what does it mean? We should always ask, “We could see how you rolled your eyes. What did you mean?” From our experience, we know that a better understanding of the customer’s language and personality also results in a better understanding of his need.

2. EXPERIENCE THE WORLD OF THE CUSTOMER

Instead of endlessly speculating on users’ everyday situations, it is far more instructive for us to experience them ourselves. This way, critical facts crystallize that can serve as starting points for innovations. But be careful: We experience only a fraction of them.

How can we experience the world of the customer?

To recognize critical needs, we adopt the perspective of the user. This requires empathy. Our own thought patterns and principles can inhibit us, because we innovate not for ourselves but for the user. In an authentic environment and with empathy, the world can be experienced through the eyes of those people who will use our product or service day after day.

3. POLLO EFFECT/HAVING AN OPEN MIND

None of us wants to ask naive questions, which cause other people to roll their eyes. We might speak of the “pollo” effect in this context (pollo is Spanish for chicken). None of us wants to volunteer to be the chicken; however, this is often necessary to immerse oneself in the world of the user. Dare to ask questions because there are no naive questions.

How do we manage to keep an open mind?

It is important to ask questions with an open mind and put our personal experiences and values to the side as much as possible.

The best approach is to imagine that we are aliens in this world, apprentices from a strange galaxy. We have never been here before and we don’t know how people live here. Our lives are completely different, and everything we hear is new and inexplicable to us. As friendly extraterrestrial beings, we try to ask users questions in a nonbiased way. This way, we discover their world and their behavior as if it were completely new. As one would expect, the statements of the respondents are more differentiated this way because the role of apprentice is not threatening to the interviewee. On the contrary, in our experience, curiosity motivates potential users to tell us even more.

EXPERT TIP
Mindfulness as the basis of empathy and innovation success

Mindfulness is a basic capability of our brain, but our ambition to multitask makes us suppress this condition too often in our everyday lives. If we focus our attention purposefully, we are able to be more precise with our perception and be more present. Mindfulness may be directed both inward and outward. Empathy is best built up when we focus on the current moment, involve all our senses, and perceive the situation in an unprejudiced way. Mindfulness is the basis for enhanced cognitive skills and is a vital aspect of the design thinking mindset because it stimulates and promotes our creativity while cultivating our empathy and emotional intelligence. The things we experience with great enthusiasm and attention, we internalize better.

Why is it so hard for us to be empathetic?

It seems that society as a whole is getting increasingly incapable of empathy. This is probably because in our achievement-oriented society, we are exposed to a constant pressure to optimize ourselves. If our interlocutor seems strange and foreign to us, or if we have already sorted him into a certain category of people by our interpretations and conclusions, we will have a hard time empathizing with him. Other influencing factors also affect our empathetic behavior: a stressful everyday life; pressure to succeed; hectic situations; being wiped out; and emotional states such as anger, rage, and fear.

Behind these emotions, you usually find unfilled needs, unconscious beliefs, prejudices, and evaluation patterns. All this reduces our willingness to put ourselves in others’ shoes and ultimately blocks our empathy.

Mindfulness as the key to empathy:

1. Dare to change the perspective: Observe the world from the other side.
2. Give full attention to a topic: Be mindful, present, and precise.
3. Listen attentively and actively: Use looks, gestures, and facial expressions to be present.
4. Reflect on your own behavior: How do I come across to other people?
5. Read signals: What do the facial expressions, gestures, and voice of your interlocutor tell you?
6. Question your readiness for empathy: Is my opinion without prejudice?
7. Ask open questions: How might the future look?
8. Explore feelings and needs: How do you feel today?
9. Express your own feelings and needs: “I wish . . .”
10. Act with empathy: How can I help?

What types of empathy are there?

Empathy is important. Like everything else in life, we can break down this basic human trait into various stages. The terms “emotional intelligence” and “emotional empathy” are often used in this context. This intelligence of emotions is becoming more and more important, whether in product design, employee management, or in human relationships. It is the ability to perceive other people’s emotional sensitivities and respond to them adequately. While cognitive empathy merely allows us to recognize, in a first step, what another person feels, emotional empathy allows us to feel what the other person is feeling. The strongest form is when we suffer with the other person mentally and physically.

How can we train empathy and mindfulness in everyday life with the help of a talking stick?

The talking stick, adopted from Northwest American indigenous cultures, is a tool for empathy and attention. In a meeting, the talking stick is given to one person. This person explains his standpoint and keeps the talking stick until he feels the other participants in the meeting have understood him. The other participants listen or ask comprehension questions; otherwise they remain silent.

What is the benefit of the talking stick?

The talking stick promotes empathy because the other people in the room listen until they put themselves in the position of the speaker and are able to give the individual speakers the feeling that they have been understood. In everyday working life, this can yield vital benefits:

• Members improve their ability to listen.
• Being understood boosts the willingness to compromise.
• Members’ ability to change perspective is nurtured and promoted.
• Everybody gets a chance to speak and is allowed to finish what he has to say.
• Only one person speaks at a time, which has a positive impact on acoustic comprehension.

Initially, this technique will demand more time in a meeting. As soon as the talking stick has been established, you will feel an increase in empathy.

EXPERT TIP
Empathy in UX design and the digital environment

In the digital environment, empathy has become a pivotal element for linking context with emotions. Usually, emotional states such as love, laughter, joy, surprise, sorrow, and anger are used. Facebook is a good example. Alongside the well-known “Like,” five other emoticons can be used. With the heart, users can express their love for things or persons; a smiley face is intended for funny contributions, and the wide-eyed emoticon stands for surprise. The two remaining emoticons stand for anger or sadness, either looking sternly at the world under a flushed forehead or crying.

With such emoticons, comprehensive data analyses on content can be carried out. So far, Like buttons have been integrated on product and service sites many, many times throughout the world. This data was only binary but has already yielded deep insights into user behavior and preferences. With emotional emoticons, services, products, and their users can be analyzed on an even more granular level. In the area of UX design, emoticons have another advantage: In many areas, users find it too burdensome to comment with a written text on a certain content, so a lot of content fades on the net without being rated. Emoticons can be easily entered on smart watches and mobile devices, which increases the comment rate considerably.

Simplicity is becoming more and more pivotal!

Why does simplicity convince users?

Until 2012, dating sites consisted of nothing more than screens filled with profile pictures in grid design. Although targeted at the millennials (generation Y), this type of depiction did not meet their individual demands for flexibility, efficiency, and autonomy. Swipe right and swipe left changed our user experience fundamentally! The developers of Tinder wondered at the outset whether it made any sense at all to provide another service in this fiercely competitive segment. Their idea emerged from complaints received from the users of other dating sites. These users’ needs constituted the basis both for the design process and the selection of the features implemented. Tinder’s entire concept is focused on the mobile user experience. Most functions of conventional dating platforms were purposefully omitted, and interaction options were reduced to a bare minimum.

Tinder is an example of three core properties of empathy in UX design:

1. Personal bond:

One picture per page and a simple interaction possibility ensures a personal and self-contained UX. The process is efficient, and the service can be called up anywhere. If there is an interest, it is even possible to obtain more information about the potential match with a click.

2. Motivation:

Because a match comes about only if both searchers signal their interest, users quickly undergo moments of happiness. Such moments have a strongly motivating impact and ensure long-term customer loyalty (hook effect; see Chapter 1.1).

3. Trust:

The chat function strengthens the trust of users in the app. The virtual date turns out to be not only surface sham—there is actually a possibility for users to arrange to meet for a quick coffee around the corner.

Good UX designers need to know how user groups come in contact with specific technologies and why they interact with them. For responding appropriately to users’ emotions, however, empathy is more important. Before beginning with the design of a product, we as designers must be in contact with the users in social networks or in the real world in order to get an authentic picture of their behavior and needs.

How can the love and passion for a product win over the users?

The credo of Lingscars.com is probably the opposite of simplicity. Ling Valentine lives for cars, for affordable leasing, and especially for her customers. Her start-up came into being in 2000 when she realized she was far more capable of operating the business than her husband. Her recipe for success is to let an emotional relationship emerge, which is of fundamental importance if you want to sell cars successfully. Most major leasing companies cannot offer this customer experience. To achieve that, Ling broke all design rules. Her Web site radiates powerful colors, different fonts, and unique graphics. This approach attracts hundreds of thousands of new users to the Web site every month. Lingscars.com was described by Management Today as “the most cluttered Web site we’ve ever seen.” She won awards for the ugliest Web site of all time and recognition for the large number of visitors. Ling is close to her customers, whether in stunts in which she appears or through her presence on blogs and the social networks.

Ling lives from viral marketing and the “word of mouth” of her satisfied customers. She addresses her customers directly. Her Chinese military truck—equipped with a huge rocket and the ad for Ling’s Cars—is a daily attraction for drivers passing it on the highway. She passes on her simple and cost-effective marketing 1:1 to her customers with attractive conditions. Her customers love her for it.

The cultural differences in the perception of design and how design thinking is used in the respective culture itself must always be taken into account.

KEY LEARNINGS
Build empathy with the user

• Build empathy by understanding the actual needs and backgrounds of potential users.
• Observe potential users without prejudice and in their actual environment.
• Act like an extraterrestrial being who has entered a new galaxy for the first time.
• Improve empathy by perceiving your own wishes, which in turn makes you more open to the needs of others.
• Listening carefully is a crucial component of empathy. Pay attention to the body language (nonverbal communication) and probe if it seems to contradict what has been said.
• Transfer emotions about contents from the digital world to reality by emoticons.
• Draw conclusions from variations of the emoticons about users, their behavior, and their emotional relationship to content, products, and services.
• Enhance user experience—even of a digital product—through the empathy you have built up.
• Make sure that all parties involved in the development phase (e.g., UX) are already dealing actively with users’ wishes.
• Pay heed to the cultural context in UX because it can strongly affect how the user perceives the offer.

1.6 How to find the right focus

By way of introduction, we already pointed out in Chapter 1.2 that the hardest thing is to determine the point of view (in short: PoV). Therefore we would like to introduce tools and methods that make this step easier.

Peter, Lilly, and Marc are frequently faced with the challenge of having to find a solution not only for one group of people but also one that is relevant to a multitude of different users or customers. In such cases, it is decisive to assume a 360° view.

In principle, empathy with a potential user is an important integral part when preparing the ideation phase; it also reminds us of our limits. Empathy is vital not only for selecting the right community but also for the way in which we pose the right questions during this phase. The questions should prompt interviewees to put themselves in different situations and consider them from different points of view.

What might the sequence for this look like? It starts with formulating the problem; then comes the definition of the relevant points of view, which ultimately leads to the questions being answered within the set framework.

Up to now, we have concentrated on developing a product for a single group of people or users and emphasized how important empathy is. Now we want to go one step further and solve a problem for a wide range of users. The concrete procedure is described on page 81.

In our experience, the following approach is suitable for obtaining a good PoV.

A) Analyze information

• Collection, interpretation, and analysis of all information.
• Summary and consolidation of key findings into insights.

B) Infer insights

• Summarize the 10 most important insights.
• Infer the design principles or problem clusters from it.

C) Formulate possible questions

• Mark possible key themes or questions (e.g., dot voting on insights and principles).
• Choose three thematic areas and formulate the question.

D) Specify questions

• Present, discuss, and select a question.
• Refine and improve the question.

How might we solve problems for a wide range of users and address their needs?

We have had good experience with a 360° view of a question.

Let’s take a need of our persona, Lilly. Lilly wants to marry Jonny. They plan their wedding party together.

They do not yet know how the wedding party should look. So the problem statement is:

Lilly and Jonny don’t know yet how their wedding party should look.

The question derived from this would be:

“What should Lilly and Jonny’s wedding party look like?”

Based on this, the stakeholders and points of view are defined:

“Suppliers and the budget, for instance, are important when you plan a wedding.”

Before we search for specific ideas, the ideation phase must be well prepared. As we have learned in the previous chapters, we are dealing with the divergent phase here, meaning nothing else than that the horizon is broadened and new ideas are searched for. To allow for this, we consider the problem from as many different perspectives as possible (i.e., from a 360° view), starting with the question.

As shown by way of example in the table, the points of view range from “money” to “age.” A rough differentiation is made between the stakeholders and other points of view. Of course, the number of pos- sible points of view is infinite—hence the selection presented here is only an example. Note that if a stakeholder map exists (see Chapter 3.4, p. 258), it can also be used as a starting point.

Back to our actual problem statement: the wedding party. We want to identify the relevant points of view and reflect upon the question of which stakeholders and which other points of view might be relevant for the question of Lilly and Jonny. As shown in the table, it is useful to define the points of view and their intentions. This makes it easier to share the points of view with other participants.

After Lilly and Jonny’s point of view has been defined, a question should be formulated for every point of view. The question has the aim of enabling the potential friends, whom the couple will ask for advice, to take the said perspective and force them to answer the question from this point of view.

The questions for the ideation phase are often very broad. Lilly andvJonny won’t organize a workshop in their case, but they will probablyvcollect answers during a shared dinner with their friends or via socialvmedia/e-mail. For a “working environment,” a physical workshopvis advisable because creativity might suffer in a digital workshop,valthough feedback can be collected quickly in the latter.

To forestall respondents’ expressing only those ideas the couple is willing to hear, some of the ideation should be done on an anonymous basis, such as in writing or by means of an online tool. Anonymity is not absolutely necessary for collecting great ideas—after all, it’s fun to talk about things that are pleasing. But if you want to know what might bother people, anonymity is a must. To the question of “What would be the worst wedding party?” some of Lilly and Jonny’s friends responded they would fear having to sit at the same table with the same people all night long. Some friends are horrified at having to wear a suit all day long. Many families would like to stay overnight locally but cannot afford an expensive hotel.

EXPERT TIP
Use 9-window tool and daisy map

There are countless methods for adding structure to the insights: Venn diagrams, mind maps, system maps, cluster analyses, customer journeys, and so forth.

The 9-window tool is a simple method for analyzing potential application cases and customer needs. In so doing, the product or service is more closely examined in the dimensions of “system” and “time.” “System” refers to the structure of a product or service, including its entire environment. It invites you to zoom in to the product/service (subsystem) or to consider the super system (zoom out). In the dimension of “time,” we vary the temporal consideration and focus on what happened in the past or might happen in the future. This approach helps us overcome barriers and see the product or digital service from a different point of view.

With the 9-window tool, Marc can structure his business idea about the theme of “patient record” (example 1).

Jonny, who predicts that the banking landscape will change in the way they lend money, can transmit the effects of various blockchain evolution levels to the respective subsystems and super systems (example 2).

Frequently, the many elements are prioritized, such as by means of scoring. The elements with the highest score are pursued and one or several are chosen for the PoV.

A daisy map can be used to depict the most important elements. Its advantage is that the most important items are highlighted, so it’s not always the top item that is automatically seen as the most important. All five to eight flower petals are equal, as it were.

HOW MIGHT WE...formulate a PoV?

As we could see from the example of Lilly and Jonny’s wedding, the PoVs serve mainly to collect, structure, and weight all insights so as to find the relevant points. They also help us identify contradictions and determine the priorities for the next iterations. This is referred to as synthesis.

Synthesis is about finding the important needs and patterns of users, including those that were undiscovered up to now. The result of our synthesis is one condensed sentence, the PoV, which determines the question for the coming ideation phase. We will return to the topic of the synthesis in this expert tip because it poses a great challenge for many design thinking teams.

Every PoV sentence is a starting point that will be adapted in the next iteration lap.

What do we focus on in the PoV phase?

• We recognize patterns in the needs of users.
• We see opportunities where others see problems.
• We understand the needs of our customers at all levels.
• We provide clarity about assumptions and hypotheses.
• We immerse ourselves in systems and make them tangible.
• We consolidate information and interpret it.
• We understand findings and emphasize the most important insights.
• We create the starting point and focus on the PoV for the next ideation.

We recommend formulating the PoV in a catchy sentence. Use various formulations. Try and test which variant is best for you, the team, and the situation.

KEY LEARNINGS
Find the right focus

• Try to find the point of view with a 360° view.
• Look at the situation from different points of view and define the focus for the next iteration.
• Use the 9-window tool to explore what happens before and after the use of the product as well as what is happening in the system.
• Present the needs not in the form of a list but as a daisy map.
• Change perspective, e.g., “time” (before, after), “money” (with, without), etc.
• Use a fill-in-the-blank text in different variants, which can be changed according to project, maturity, preferences.
• Start a project with pretty simple WH questions: “How might we. . .?” or “How many different ways are there for…?”
• Always develop various PoV questions and choose the most suitable one from among them.

1.7 How to generate ideas

Without ideas, no new products! The importance of finding good ideas at the right time is enormous, putting both participants and workshop facilitators, whose job is to tease out ideas from attendees, under pressure.

We know from studies that groundbreaking ideas don’t always emerge during a brainstorming session; sometimes, the creative spark leaps while you have a shower or scribble something on a napkin. This is why creative companies give their employees more and more leeway to allow for this type of intrinsic inspiration to happen; for instance, in the form of workdays on which employees are allowed to do whatever they want. The only condition is for them to report back what they have done.

However, often the milestones already have been set, and as product developers or engineers we are in no position to explain to the boss that we want to spend the next four hours in the shower because the chances of hitting on great ideas are better there. So we need methods and tools of structured ideation.

Peter in particular is under a lot of pressure due to deadlines. He must deliver up creative results and, consequently, get his team to cough up creative outputs and put people in the right mood at the touch of a button. Lilly knows from experience that some factors must be met for this touch of the button to be effective. The following credo actually seems too banal and childish to her: “A good mood is the #1 prerequisite.” Despite this, she’s convinced that the potential of shared ideation can only unfold when a casual, relaxed atmosphere prevails.

Only then can attendees engage in a search for ideas on a broad basis. The switch to a different or new environment alone can change the mood. If the meeting takes place week after week in the same conference room that is associated with some boring statistics, it is not conducive to a good atmosphere. So why not move the workshop to another room, outside, or even to the closest bar?

EXPERT TIP
Rules for a good brainstorming session

Before beginning with any brainstorming, people must laugh at least once. A warmup that makes participants smile helps. From our experience, it’s best when they smile at one another. Thinking in hierarchical structures is a hindrance to free and unfettered ideation. An apprentice does not want to make a peculiar impression on his boss when expressing a fanciful idea.

For this reason, we are encouraged to point out that the assistant and the accountant, the CEO and the marketing officer of the company, can all make an important contribution in the process of ideation. If participants do not know one another, so much the better! Not having general introductions before the brainstorming session, which would include announcing who has which role, has proven useful indeed. A nonbiased dialog is of great value.

When we feel there is a steep hierarchy in our company, we can try out the reverse approach: We form a team only from trainees, for instance, so they will have the opportunity to raise their profile and show others their creative potential. In the next workshop, the groups will then almost certainly mix at their own initiative.

The beauty of brainstorming is everybody is given the opportunity to come up with good ideas, no matter which function or role he or she has.

What are the rules we comply with in a good brainstorming session?

Brainstorming rules are numerous. Our top three are:

Creative confidence

We express all ideas that come into our heads, no matter how silly they might appear to us. Maybe the next person can base another idea exactly on our “silly” contribution. For this to work, we need the relaxed atmosphere just described.

Quantity goes before quality

Very, very important! The point of this phase is to fill the hat with as many ideas as possible—evaluation comes later. We resist the temptation of being satisfied with the first good idea. Maybe an even better idea is only five minutes away in our brainstorming session.

No criticism of ideas

Under no circumstances are ideas allowed to be criticized during this phase. The evaluation of the ideas takes place later in a separate step.

How can we get participants to break loose from their supposedly serious professionalism and open up to new and unconventional things?

Quite conventional ideas usually mark the beginning of a brainstorming session. Their novelty value is low.

Peter has had the experience of some of his colleagues coming to every workshop with a fixed idea of how the solution might look. During the brainstorming session, it is hard to pull them away from these fixed ideas, and they generate little that is new. For this reason, Peter always holds a first session at the beginning, which he refers to as the “brain dump.” All attendees have the opportunity in this session to dump their ideas so they are open to new things.

The actual search for ideas only begins in the second step. Peter encourages the participants to break out of their usual thought patterns so they can come up with some “wild” ideas. He uses two specific tricks; here’s how we implement them in our workshops:

1. When we moderate a workshop with several groups, we can shape the search for ideas as an internal contest. We stop the brainstorming session after halftime and request that the groups state the number of collected ideas.

   For the individual teams, this is an incentive to catch up, so they will inevitably have to venture in the direction of “wilder” ideas if they have undermatched the creative performance of the other groups. This approach allows us to see which group is wrestling with difficulties. If one group is far behind in their number of ideas, we watch to find out exactly what inhibits the team. Usually, it turns out this group has— against instructions—begun to discuss and evaluate the ideas.

2. We have the groups present the two best and two dumbest solutions they have generated. This moment is a valuable experience for every group. First, the task will induce a few giggles, which is quite a help for creating a positive atmosphere. Second, and far more important, now a debate is launched on whether some of the ideas are actually as dumb as had been assumed at first. Every dumb idea has potential! When we know how to reverse the idea successfully into something positive, we will gain valuable perspectives with a guaranteed novelty value.

EXPERT TIP
Creativity techniques

Problem reversal technique

The problem reversal technique is Lilly’s favorite method when she asks students to generate ideas for something but they don’t really have any desire to join in. Lilly reverses the question and asks, for example, “How would you prevent creativity on your team?” The problem reversal technique stimulates creativity and gives participants the opportunity to have fun with a topic. In a second step, every negative statement is reversed into a positive one.

We must emphasize, though, that this method is less suitable for finding new product ideas. The reversed question, “What would something have to be like?” often results in a requirements list instead of ideas. We have nonetheless had good experience with the problem reversal technique; for example, for the revision and/or improvement of service processes.

Requirements versus ideas

Lilly learns that students in the technical area in particular have great difficulties finding “real ideas.” They have a hard time differentiating between requirements and ideas. In a brainstorming session for a new headset, participants wrote “ergonomic,” “lightweight,” and “user-friendly” on their Post-its. Those participants coming from business administration wrote down words such as “cheaper” or “cutting-edge design.” At this point, Lilly interrupts and explains that these things are not actually ideas but requirements for the product. Of course, we must also be clear about the problem for which we want to generate ideas. In this case: How might we communicate in the future without cell phones? The terms “ergonomic” and “cutting edge” do not entail a solution to the problem. An idea would be that, in the future, the electronics would be implanted under the skin to communicate worldwide. A somewhat less abstract idea would be to integrate the communication in accessories and clothing, such as with Google Glass.

HOW MIGHT WE...generate depth when searching for ideas?

Depth of ideas

To explain the levels of the depth of ideas and the term “requirements” better, we use the following model: We imagine we are standing in front of a ditch and want to get to the other side.

1. What is the problem? (level 1)

A ditch cuts off this side from the other side. So our problem is that we must get to the opposite side somehow. We start brainstorming with the question: How can we get to the other side? “Safely,” “in one piece,” “dry,” and so on, are not ideas but the requirements for the solution. They don’t help us in this situation.

2. The brainstorming question (level 2)

The formulation of the brainstorming question is crucial and largely determines how many ideas can be generated or how greatly the possible solution space is expanded. Depending on the question, we restrict and channel the solution space or else expand it. The following formulations illustrate this: “What could we lay across the ditch to get to the other side?” versus “How can one overcome a physical barrier such as a ditch?”

3. Possible solution ideas (level 3)

We might “fly,” “build a bridge,” “beam ourselves,” or “fill the ditch with so much material that we can walk across it.”

4. Idea variants (level 4)

Any number of variants can evolve for each of these ideas. In a second brainstorming session, the question might be: How many ways are there to fly? “With an airplane,” “with a flying bicycle,” “with bird wings,” “like in the Red Bull ad,” “by pole vaulting,” and the like.

If one group finds it hard to get away from requirements, it is advisable to have them build rudimentary models of their “ideas.” This will make it mandatory for requirements to be implemented as an idea.

Tips for depth of ideas:

• We formulate the brainstorming question so it matches the solution space we want to open up.
• We can still adapt the brainstorming question during a workshop.
• The solutions from level 3 can be consolidated in a morphological box; more variants of partial solutions are conceivable.
• If a group has a hard time advancing to level 3, the instruction to translate the ideas into a physical prototype is often quite helpful. It forces the participants to become more specific. Implementing a physical model in a “user-friendly” way will help them engage in level 3.

EXPERT TIP
Quick ’n’ dirty prototyping

“Prototyping”—building an idea as a physical model—is another creativity technique. The diversity of the provided material determines whether more ideas will emerge or not. The more odds and ends are available, the better it is. A balloon that’s been discovered summons up the idea that something could be flexible and stretchable; a piece of cord reminds a participant that the thing might be portable.

The rubber dog in the prototyping material box:

More or less by accident, Lilly threw a rubber toy dog into the prototyping box. When the participants in the brainstorming session were tasked to translate their ideas into physical models, one of them found the toy and was highly amused by it. He started to spin ideas: “The dog could do this and that in the machine,” whereupon his team members joined in and came up with more ideas. The team had a lot of fun with the dog, which enabled them to break out of their habitual thought patterns and reflect upon things they had thought little about up to now. Until the very end, the dog contributed materially to the successful outcome. Since then, it has been an integral part of Lilly’s prototyping box that she brings along to the workshops.

EXPERT TIP
SCAMPER

SCAMPER is a further development of the well-known Osborn checklist. Alex Osborn, a brainstorming expert, developed in collaboration with Sidney Parnes one of the first approaches to the creative problem-solving process. For ideation, the Scamper method uses—along with brainstorming—a list of questions that should provide food for thought toward solving the problem. In our experience, it is important initially to see an example and then go through the detailed questions. SCAMPER is an acronym and stands for the terms:

SCAMPER = S ubstitute, C ombine, A dapt, M odify, P ut to other uses, E liminate, R earrange

SCAMPER is useful when we would like to stimulate creativity and find even more ideas. Basically, SCAMPER can be used for nearly anything: for products, processes, systems, solutions, services, business models, or ecosystems. In the event that individual questions or elements are not quite suitable or obvious, that doesn’t matter for the application. We simply leave these questions out.

Substitute

• What can be substituted?
• What can be used in its place?
• Who can be involved instead?
• Which process could be used instead?
• What other material could be used instead?

Combine

• What can be combined?
• What can be mixed?
• How might certain parts be connected?
• Which purposes could be combined?

Adapt

• What other ideas are suggested by it?
• Is there anything that is similar and can be applied to the existing problem?
• Have there been similar situations in the past?

Modify

• What modification could be introduced?
• Can the meaning be changed?
• How might the color or shape be changed?
• What can be increased?
• What can be reduced?
• What could be modernized?
• Can it be enlarged?
• Can it be downsized?

Put to other uses

• For what other purposes could it be used in its present state?
• For what purpose could it be used if it were modified?

Eliminate

• What could be eliminated?
• What are the things it would still work without?

Rearrange

• What other patterns would also work?
• What modifications could be introduced?
• What could be replaced?
• What could be rearranged?

KEY LEARNINGS
Generate ideas

• Make sure the environment offers a good atmosphere and build up team members’ creative confidence.
• Laugh a lot but never laugh at one another!
• Creativity sessions should always be in at least two parts. Provide a “brain dump” at the beginning and then stimulate creativity.
• Motivate participants to deliver a great quantity of ideas, such as via contests between teams, or by using additional sources of inspiration such as the problem reversal technique and other creativity techniques.
• Differentiate between requirements and features. Properties such as “ergonomic” or “cutting edge” are not solutions to the problem.
• Separate the ideation (the generation of ideas) from the evaluation of the ideas.
• Designate a moderator, who guides in the creativity technique, and a facilitator, who leads through the process.
• Comply with the brainstorming rules (e.g., no criticism of ideas, quantity goes before quality, etc.).
• Communicate the various ideas uniformly and objectively.
• Make use of methods such as SCAMPER, which help us to increase creativity by providing food for thought.

1.8 How to structure and select ideas

When we apply various types of brainstorming, we amass many ideas. In addition, we have consciously encouraged the teams to generate as many ideas as possible. Peter and Lilly are aware of the phenomenon: Once the team’s initial reluctance has been overcome and a positive mindset has set in, ideas keep cropping up in rapid succession. Often, the screens, windows, and walls are not big enough to place all the ideas.

The agony of choice. Selecting ideas is a real challenge. For one, each one of us interprets the drawings, words, or short texts on the Post-its differently. Second, there are ideas whose basic thought goes in the same direction, and ideas that solve a completely different problem than originally intended.

We recommend performing a sort of clustering initially. This can be done in different ways: Either the facilitator sets the framework, or else the teams themselves conduct a classification that seems the most suitable to them.

The examples show that ideas can be grouped, assigned, or simply described by an umbrella term. The way is the goal, and the discussion about a meaningful classification in itself results in everybody having the same understanding of the ideas in the end. Depending on how solid the understanding and how refined the degree of detailing is, ideas can be selected directly or undergo further analysis, specification, and structuring. There are various possibilities for evaluating ideas and clusters. Having participants vote for ideas by placing adhesive dots on them is a simple way to do it. The vote is quick and democratic.

Structuring, such as with concept maps, improves the clarity of the ideas and makes it easier for the team to plan the next steps and tackle them in a focused way. Once the idea has been selected, the next step is to present it in a way appropriate for the target group. Again, there are various possibilities for this, such as creating a communication sheet of the concept ideas.

If the range of ideas is very broad and the scope of the question has been greatly expanded, the ideas can initially be grouped into overarching topics and then clustered again.

The clustering can be used at an earlier stage to preselect the ideas, such as on the basis of the speed of dissemination and implementability, or on the basis of a Churchill matrix with the dimensions of importance and urgency.

G) Stepwise selection using the “speed of dissemination and implementability” matrix

The first step of this two-tier procedure focuses on the speed of dissemination and the speed of adaptation. Especially in a political environment—which prevails at Peter’s company, for instance—it is useful to consider the decision makers and one’s own influence on the potential rollout. The best ideas are characterized by rapid dissemination and fast adaptation. In a second step, the implementability and financial feasibility are investigated. This results in implementation alternatives or indications of the functional scope.

H) Selection based on the criteria of “important and urgent"

This matrix is particularly suitable when the search is for which

measures to use.

We show the urgency on the x-axis and the importance on the y-axis. Then we discuss with the team which measures must be allocated to which quadrant. Once all measures have been entered, we can enter the to-do’s, including the respective responsibilities, and determine milestones.

EXPERT TIP
Select ideas that aim at a great vision

We all know the phenomenon of criteria being developed in large organizations to select potential ideas. These criteria enable a large number of teams to develop innovations in a more targeted way. Often, the criteria act as a kind of guardrail or specify certain financial goals. In general, such criteria are inhibiting, but because they do exist in reality, we should discuss them. If the criteria are not known within the framework of a well-defined strategy and vision, it is useful to ask some key questions:

• What might the vision be?
• What are the personal preferences at management level?
• What is our enterprise’s culture, its values, and and sense of morals?
• Which growth areas have already been defined as part of a strategy discussion?
• What is the financial contribution an idea must yield as a minimum?
• What are the customer needs and trends on the market?

When defining criteria, it is important to be aware of reality. The potential market opportunity can be as great as it may be, but if the decision makers (e.g., top management) don’t cotton to it, the idea will fail. At the least, when financial resources are allocated, we will be confronted with this situation. As illustrated, a selection via the dual matrix with the dimensions of speed of dissemination and implementability can be useful.

The values a company stands for are equally important. If it goes against the moral grain of a company to use customer data from digital channels for other business models or to sell it profitably, such ideas will have little success. Defining of these and other criteria at an early stage has at least the advantage that the waste of resources is reduced and effectiveness is boosted.

But we ought to try everything in our power to overcome such restrictions. In our experience, “submarine” projects have proven useful: projects that are initiated on the q.t. with a small number of dedicated employees and “go to the surface” only once the initial results were worked out in prototype form and have won over the decision makers.

EXPERT TIP
Structure as a poster

Any type of structure can be depicted as a poster; for example, as a simple pro-and-con poster. The goal is to visualize the collective intelligence of a team or capture a mood. For example, we query pro and con arguments on a subject in a poster form and then have participants rate them. Lilly uses this variant to obtain quick feedback about the course from the participants at the end of her design thinking event without having to get into prolonged discussions.

For scheduling, we can draw the poster in the form of a timeline. Let’s take the planning and iterative creation of The Design Thinking Playbook as an example. Again, we had the “courage to drop”! The party atmosphere at the end of the project was quite motivating for editors and experts. How we can use such elements otherwise and visualize them in a target-oriented way will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 2.3.

EXPERT TIP
Working with concept maps, mind maps, systems maps, or giga maps

A concept map is basically nothing more than the visualization of concepts that shows us the correlations. Thus a concept map in a figurative sense is the graphic depiction of knowledge and an excellent means for us to bring order to our thoughts. The depiction of the concept map is freer than that of the better-known mind mapping.

In the mind map, the key concept is written in the center and then built up from inside to outside. Thus it looks like a tree: branches on which terms are written go off from the key concept. Hence the mind map is more a means for brainstorming. It helps to bring order to the discovered points but it doesn’t show the correlations among them.

A concept map can start from several key concepts. Often there are cross-connections between the branched concepts, similar to a road network. For this reason, the creation of concept maps takes more time than that of a mind map. In our experience, at least three new creations or restructurings are usually necessary to get to a good result.

As the name suggests, a systems map is a visualization of the system. The various actors and stakeholders as well as the observed elements are sketched. Interrelationships and influences can also be depicted. In so doing, an iterative adaptation and detailing takes place. Typically, you go from the rough to the detailed (i.e., top-down). Thinking in variants is also an important element. In a systems map, material, energy, money, and information flows can be depicted. A systems map helps to understand and visualize the problem. We will address the topic of systems thinking in greater depth in Chapter 3.1. Chapter 3.3 will deal with business ecosystem design.

Other concepts, such as the giga map, will also be investigated more closely. A pragmatic description of a giga map would be “a big messy map of a big messy thing.” It is also a stripped-down form of the systems map, while following the basic idea of the concept map. Giga maps can help us draw up a holistic conception of a specific task, for instance. In a final version, the giga map helps to communicate the treatise. But usually, largely owing to its complexity, it is only understood by those who created it.

EXPERT TIP
Document and communicate ideas with communication sheets

We work frequently with teams all over the world in major projects and organizations. The simple and clear documentation and communication of ideas is, hence, extremely important. Communication sheets on the concept ideas are a good way to achieve clarity. Ideas can be shared easily with such templates. Moreover, ideas become tangible, and possible misunderstandings are minimized.

With the compilation of communication sheets, we achieve

• the visualization of the problem and the situation,
• an improved understanding of the problem and idea,
• a better understanding of possible influences on customers and users,
• order to our thoughts,
• the recognition of approaches to the solution, and
• the documentation, summary and depiction of our knowledge.

HOW MIGHT WE...structure and select ideas?

We recommend this simple procedure for giving structure to the ideation process. First, after the ideation, bundle the ideas into clusters and structure them. Then, select the most important ideas or clusters and refine them; last, document them.

The ideas can be selected according to the needs of our persona or according to actual use.

1. Generate ideas
2. Structure the ideas
3. Select the ideas
4. Refine and document the ideas

KEY LEARNINGS
Structure and select ideas

• Group the ideas and select them systematically—selection is an important step.
• Use any possibilities for structuring and visualization in order to understand and communicate problems or situations.
• Improve the team’s understanding of both the problem and the solution by actively discussing the selected ideas.
• Create mind maps, concept maps, systems maps, and giga maps that enable the team to rapidly achieve a summary and presentation of the knowledge.
• Bring order to thoughts so you can better recognize approaches to solutions.
• Document concept ideas on a standard sheet to support comparability and communication.

1.9  How to create a good prototype

Prototyping is an important element of design thinking. It encourages us to test functions and solutions in reality, in conjunction with the desire to learn from users how to improve an offer on an ongoing basis. For this to succeed, all those involved in the process must keep an open mind so an idea can be changed or discarded. What is crucial here is the willingness to make radical changes. With a prototype, an idea is brought into a form that allows potential users to experience and evaluate it. At the outset, the prototype must be only good enough to make the relevant basic features of a future offer comprehensible to a target audience. Prototyping makes it possible to obtain quick and inexpensive targeted feedback from potential customers and users.

What is the best way to build a prototype?

Physical prototypes can be made from aluminum foil, paper, or Lego bricks; in the case of services, they can be expressed in the form of a role play. Digital prototypes can be built, designed as videos, clickable presentations, or landing pages. Of course, the various types can be combined; for example, integrating a smartphone into a cardboard box so it works as a display and thus serves as the prototype for augmented reality glasses.

First principle:

How does our first prototype come into being?

In general, ideas are based on many different assumptions. The task is to question these assumptions and confirm them in the real world by testing, or to discard them—that is, disprove them with a counterexample on the basis of observations and an experiment. During the prototyping process, prototypes are further developed and tested in a number of iterations until a usable offer emerges. Ideally, we begin with enough insights from trend and market research and a solid understanding of the needs and challenges of our potential customers or users.

An initial prototype is characterized by the fact that it can be made using the simplest available materials and as quickly as possible. The simpler, faster, and cheaper we produce a prototype, the less it will hurt us when we have to reject it. An initial prototype can be developed from cardboard, paper, plastic cups, string, tape, and other materials and then assessed.

In prototyping, a second principle applies:

Never fall in love with your prototype!

Over time, the degree of maturity of our prototypes will be higher, and it will be more elaborate. We must therefore schedule plenty of time for prototyping and testing. The more sophisticated our prototype is, the more accurate and meaningful the tests will be. The degree of maturity of the prototype depends on how much time and money we can invest in it. Our intention, however, must be to drive the prototype only as far as necessary in order to attain our set goals.

The test results of the prototype serve the project team as a basis for decision making in order to make the right, balanced decisions in terms of human desirability, economic feasibility, and technical implementability. Only once all these criteria have intersected are we on the right path for generating a market opportunity. We always begin with the human being and his needs.

The focus of prototyping is always on learning. As described in Chapter 1.2—in the macro cycle—prototyping is possible at any time. The added value of individual functions, a new product, or the result of a customer interaction can be tested with a prototype.

Thus we come to the third principle of prototyping:

It’s a never-ending story: Prototyping means to iterate, iterate, and iterate still again.

Lilly and Jonny are still dreaming of their company, which offers design thinking consultancy services. After Lilly has come up with some initial ideas for a value proposition and possible consultancy priorities, she wants to test these ideas on a potential Web site that can also be used on mobile devices. Later in the book (see Chapter 3.2), we will discuss in greater detail how a good value proposition is defined and why Lilly mainly focuses on the usability of the Web site for the time being.

Back to the prototype: Lilly outlines every page of her Web site on paper. She can’t do anything wrong when building her prototype—unless she wants to get it all right the very first time, which is impossible—but she can learn a a great deal from the subsequent tests with potential users. She thinks in variants: What might be an alternative for “this or that”?  She detaches herself from one variant and tries out something completely different once again—the first idea doesn’t always have to be the best!

Three key questions arise when building the prototype:

• What are the basic functions for the user?
• What hasn’t she taken into consideration at all yet?
• How has nobody ever done it before?

Now Lilly tests and iterates the mobile version of her Web site with potential customers until they like it and are satisfied with its navigation and the scope of its contents. She refines the prototype all the way up to the finished design, which is only programmed at the end. Generally, the following applies: The simpler the prototype of an offer can be operated, the better.

Whatever it is we want to develop—a product, a service, an organization, a system, a space or environment, a start-up, a create-up, or a Web site—we can use different types of prototypes during the development. Our overview presents common kinds of prototypes and can encourage us as a project team to try out different things. The low, medium, or high degree of resolution (i.e., the level of detail of a prototype) helps us find out what is suitable at what point in time over the course of the development.

Degree of resolution:

• low = in an early phase
• medium = first approaches to a solution
• high = more end solutions

HOW MIGHT WE...better discuss our ideas and portfolio consideration with “boxing & shelfing”

During the prototyping phase it is important to make the services, products, and solutions tangible so that they can be experienced. Two methods help us to realize this: The “boxing principle“ tries to use the analogy of packaging to illustrate the most important information. The “shelfing“ aims to discuss a whole product portfolio and to organize the “boxes.“

Boxing principle:

The basic idea behind “boxing“ is to create a physical box, which can be used, for example, for the marketing of the product. Let‘s imagine a cereal box.

Each side of the box contains information that summarizes the benefits and characteristics of the cereal mix and the brand. The name, logo, and slogan are on the front, as well as a few points that highlight the key benefits of this brand. On the back you will find more detailed information about the ingredients and attributes of the product and some information about the company.

Core questions in boxing:

• Front: what is the product name, image, slogan and two to three promises about the product?
• Back: which details about the feature, application, and content are important?

On the remaining sides the WH questions are answered by means of text or visualizations:

• Who is the target customer or user?
• Which goals should be achieved? Which problems are solved ?
• When is the product available and how can we get it?
• Where and under what circumstances is the product used?
• Why should the user use the product?

The boxing principle can be used in other ways than as a product box as described. The added value of boxing is that the situation can be viewed from different perspectives. Similar to the product box, a problem box, a solution box, a project box (e.g., per project or working package), a process box (e.g., per process step) can be created.

Shelfing principle:

When it comes to describing a whole portfolio, often a structure is missing for the discussion. One possibility is to sort all products, services, and solutions into three shelves: the product, service, and solution shelves.

We have had a very good experience by sorting the offerings in the respective shelves. Above the shelves, we write the categories that the customer would most likely look for. Afterward we arrange the products, services, and solutions accordingly.

The advantage of this method is that gaps in the offering portfolio, and also synergies, can be detected quickly. New ideas can be described as boxes as explained (see “boxing“) and then can be sorted on the shelf. The discussion may relate to attributes such as attractiveness, novelty, strategy contribution, differentiation, etc.

How does our offer for the perfect kitchen look?

IKEA‘s portfolio in the area of kitchen can be explained well with three shelfing portfolios.

The most important benefit of this technique is that it forces the team to construct their own understanding of the product in a very direct and visual manner.

This exercise provides a playful yet insightful method to pass on a deeper understanding of the product vision, while promoting discussion and collaboration between all the stakeholders.

HOW MIGHT WE...design a prototyping workshop?

Because we have already done a great deal of the preliminary groundwork, we assume we have developed a solid understanding of the problem statement, have verified certain assumptions, and given some thought to possible solutions. Now the focus must be transferred from the world of ideas to the real world.

Possible steps of a prototyping workshop

Step 1

In the beginning, we have a number of functions or initial solution scenarios that we would like to test. On the team, we ponder what functions are absolutely critical to a user. They are the functions we would like to integrate in the solution and test in the real world. As discussed in the previous chapters, prototypes exist in different manifestations and can be processed in different ways. What is important is that we implement something tangible and that an interaction with a potential user can come into being.

Step 2

The team thinks about which variant should be built.

Step 3

Now the team builds one or multiple prototypes. At this point, it is important to provide enough material for building the prototype.

Step 4

Performing the prototyping in several groups already allows us to obtain feedback from the others. A good way of obtaining feedback is through “green” or “red” feedback. The feedback is given in the form of “What I like about the prototype is. . .” (green feedback) or “I wish that the prototype. . .” (red feedback). This helps to maintain a positive basic mood and cultivate improvements.

Step 5

Based on the initial feedback, the prototypes as well as the way of presenting them are improved. It is important here to concentrate on the essential features and solutions.

Step 6

Before we go out and confront real users with our revised prototype, we carefully prepare our testing (see Chapter 1.10). One successful method is to go out in pairs for the prototype testing. One team member can ask the questions, and the other makes observations. After returning from the tests, all team members document and share their findings.

Step 7

Based on the findings, the prototypes are improved and/or some variants are discarded. If none of the prototypes work, it is useful to obtain more facts and customer needs and adapt the prototypes accordingly. The new variants of prototypes, in turn, serve for tests with potential users.

Prototyping workshop

KEY LEARNINGS
Building prototypes

• When prototyping, start with the need of the persona and a trend in the market.
• Always build prototypes on the basis of the question of what is to be tested.
• Bear in mind that no offer has any intrinsic value. The value that customers ascribe to the offer is all that counts.
• Make sure that as many customers as possible ascribe value to the offer.
• Test the prototype as early as possible in the real world. Prototypes are assumptions that must be scrutinized.
• Use the material that is available to build prototypes.
• Create prototypes under time pressure. More time does not yield more results. Time boxing boosts the pressure to get results.
• Make sure that the objective and the maturity of the prototype match.
• Always schedule enough time for prototyping and testing, across the entire duration of the project.
• Involve at an early stage the project team members who will implement the prototype in the end.
• Apply “boxing and shelfing” to test a potential portfolio while prototyping.

1.10  How to test efficiently

We always receive valuable feedback when we test prototypes with customers in the real world, namely potential users or in the environment of the users. Peter knows the importance of user and customer tests and tries to get out of his innovation and co-creation lab with his prototypes as early and often as possible. His current test of a prototype—an app for monitoring metabolic diseases with the option of receiving help from a team of doctors online—involves being out and about in Bahnhofstrasse in Zurich. Where else would he find the clientele for such an upscale and expensive managed service?

Single-mindedly, Peter walks up to a pretty, elegantly attired lady in her mid-thirties, his prototype in hand. She is just leaving an exclusive shop for handbags and heads, loaded with bags, for her Bentley. She doesn’t look sick or anything but Peter doesn’t want to start the test with false assumptions. For Peter, the situation is clear: first offer help, come across as a likable fellow, and build up empathy. Peter is glad to carry the large shopping bags for the pretty woman. He asks if she would like to participate in the next big innovation, and two minutes later the two are enjoying a glass of Champagne for the “user test” in the bar kitty-corner from the exquisite shop.

The young lady likes the naive questions Peter asks with the attitude and behavior of a “greenhorn,” so she talks a lot about herself but even more about the illnesses of the older gentlemen with whom she usually spends the warm summer nights in Monte Carlo. After one and a half bottles of Champagne—the mood is cheerful indeed—Priya happens to walk by the bar. At least now we know what triggered Peter’s little marital crisis with Priya. Nonetheless, Peter has learned a lot about the application of his prototype, es- pecially that there is no Wi-Fi coverage on yachts on the high seas, so getting online support from doctors there would be impossible.

Why is testing so important?

In tests with users, it is important to ask “why” in order to learn the real motivation, even if we think we know the answer. Our primary goal in a test interview is to learn, not to give reasons for or sell the prototype. This is why we don’t explain (too early) how it works. We ask for stories and situations in which our potential customers might have needed the prototype. Whenever possible, we collect and analyze quantitative data to validate the qualitative results. This approach allowed Peter to learn a great deal about life in Monte Carlo and on the high seas.

Testing is an essential step in the design thinking process. Not infrequently, decisive change proposals appear during this phase that could enhance the quality of the end result substantially. In particular, the fresh views of people who were not involved in the development of the prototype and thus are much freer in their assessment can pay off quite well in the end. They can see prototypes through the eyes of a customer or user.

HOW MIGHT WE...design the test sequence?

A test can be broken down into four steps:

1. Test preparation

The best way to start is to define clear-cut learning goals or hypotheses that we want to test:

• What do we want to learn?
• What do we want to test?
• With whom do we want to conduct the test, and where?

In the end, the test should show what parts of an idea we should keep, what we should change, and what we should discard. In the early phases, the goal might also be to understand the problem. Before embarking on the actual test series with various users, an initial test with one person should be carried out to exclude any errors. We leave enough time to implement improvements after the first test prior to conducting more tests.

Define question maps

We formulate simple, clear, and open questions that we can explore in greater depth at the end. They should not be hypothetical but tie in to the real situation of the test person. We do not ask many questions, but rather focus on the core about which we want to gain insights. Courage and focus are important. Less important stuff can be omitted, so we don’t overload the tests. We let the user talk about his experience. As the moderator, we can ask follow-ups when suitable; for example, “Tell us what you think while you do that.”

Determine the test scenario

We reflect on the exact sequence of the test and the situation of the test person and describe it. We provide as much context as necessary and explain it as simply as possible. We let the user experience our prototype and deliberately refrain from explaining the thoughts and considerations behind our prototype. Particularly in phases of the design thinking process in which there are still many iterations, the issue is not, for instance, to find out how much the customer would be willing to pay for a product. Instead, we try to find out whether our idea matches the context and life of our user and, if so, how does it fit.

2. Conducting the test

It has been our experience that we achieve the best results when we test multiple ideas or variants of one idea that we have described as a scenario beforehand. This way, the feedback will be far more differentiated. If we only have one solution ready, the user’s response to what he thinks about the idea might be rather vague. That usually doesn’t get us very far in terms of our clarifications. When the user must undergo several different test arrangements, he can make comparisons, evaluate, and formulate his feedback far more precisely, such as what exactly he finds better or worse in one prototype than in the other. It has become second nature for us to test the prototype in a context, namely in its natural environment.

As mentioned, it is better to include more people for observation and documentation in the test, as per the motto, “Never go hunting alone.” Those involved can take on different roles. For example:

The moderator:

As a moderator, we help the user to cross over from reality to the prototype situation and explain the context, so that the user has a better understanding of the scenario. In addition, it is our task as a moderator to pose the questions.

The actor:

As actors, we must take on certain roles in the scenario in order to create the right prototype experience— usually a service experience.

The observer:

The important task for observers is to watch in a focused way everything the user does in the situation. If we have only one observer on the team, it is best to film everything so we can look at the interaction together later in more detail.

Online tools can also be used for testing.

3. Document results

In our experience, it is of vital importance to document the results. In so doing, we actively observe how the users use (and misuse!) what we have given them. We do not immediately correct what our test person is doing. Photos or video recordings are very suitable for documentation. We always ask the users for their permission. Digital tools make documentation easier, but be careful not to forget to use them. To elict richer answers, we probe with further questions. It’s very important and often constitutes the most valuable part of the tests. Questions can be, for example, “Can you say more about how it feels to you?” “Why?” and “Show us why this would (not) work for you.” Ideally, we answer questions with questions: “What do you think this button is for?” Resist the temptation to conduct a marketing or voice-of-the-customer survey!

The use of a feedback-capture grid has proven quite useful. It facilitates the documentation of feedback, either real-time or from presentations and prototypes. We use the grid to capture the feedback systematically and deliberately in four main areas.

• What do we like?
• What wishes do we have?
• What questions have cropped up?
• Which initial ideas and solutions have we found?

Filling in the four quadrants is pretty easy: We write each piece of user feedback in the suitable quadrant category.

As an alternative, we can choose the following areas for the four quadrants: “I like…,” “I wish…,” “What if…,” and “What is the benefit?”

This method can be easily applied to groups consisting of two to over 100 people. The simple structure helps to formulate constructive feedback.

Giving feedback is one thing, receiving feedback quite another. When we receive feedback, we should see it as a gift and express our gratitude. We listen to the feedback and do not have to answer in any way. In addition, we should avoid justifying ourselves and simply listen well. At the end, we ask again if haven’t understand something or if something is still unclear to us.

4. Infer learnings

The insights serve to improve our prototypes and adapt the persona. Going through the iterations is crucial here; it contributes to constant learning.

The purpose of testing is to understand needs better and build up empathy. The approximation and constant improvement—as well as, again, failure and mistakes—achieve the learning effect. We all know the banal-sounding expression “fail fast—fail often.” Early and frequent failure is indeed an important element of design thinking and contributes significantly to realizing market opportunities in the end. At the end of the testing, it is important to document both the findings and the test well and share both with the team.

EXPERT TIP
Carry out an A/B testing with your prototype

One possibility of quantitative testing is to carry out an A/B comparison. It is especially suitable for simple prototypes and allows us to test two different versions of a landing page, for instance, or even two versions of an element such as a value proposition or test button. In the case of a Web site, the titles and descriptions of the offers, the text volume, style, promotion offers, length of forms, and boxes can be examined in an A/B test.

To achieve relevant test results, it is important for both versions to be tested concurrently or in tandem and within a predefined, appropriate time period. The final measurement and evaluation as to which version

was more successful in the test and which one will be used in the real world must be done on the basis of clearly predefined criteria.

At an early stage of prototyping, we have the test person first experience variant A. Then we find out what the test person likes about it and what he would want changed. Then we repeat the procedure with variant B. Depending on the situation, we can also observe and question one test group about variant A and another about variant B.

Using a landing page, we can check the conversion rate directly in an A/B test by observing the reactions; we simply distribute the page views to version A and version B by means of an A/B testing tool. Only one variable at a time should be changed to find out why one variant is better liked. This A/B test shows clearly which Web site gets more registrations. Calculators are available to check the statistical relevance. If a Web site already exists and we want to test a new version B, we make sure that regular visitors don’t get confused by making version B available only to new visitors.

The test can show a result in favor of A or B, respectively, or else no statistically relevant preference at all. Perhaps possibilities can be inferred from the test as to how to combine the best of the two variants.

What digital tools can be used to test prototypes quickly?

An extremely simple and effective way of taking many users’ feedback into account is the use of a Web-based tool. Recently, various Software-as-a-Service solutions have evolved, with which affordable, efficient and Web-based feedback can be obtained.

With the aid of such a tool, Peter quickly built up an internal feedback community consisting of employees of his company and selected external customers. “Friendly user test,” a term frequently used in German-speaking countries, doesn’t quite hit home. After all, the specific purpose of the test is to identify weaknesses in the design and get suggestions for improvement—which are not necessarily “friendly.” The term “customer trial” used in English-speaking regions is a little better.

Peter has used such a tool for a customer trial several times already, and it has been helpful in his experience. It enables him to obtain feedback in relation to

• prototype variants,
• procedures, and
• images or links through URLs.

and to conduct A/B testing. The number of prototypes is unlimited. One great advantage of such a tool is that additional questions can be asked and there is a great deal of leeway in terms of the makeup of the community surveyed. The segmentation ensures that the feedback matches his needs optimally.

On the same day he sets up the tool, Peter receives some initial feedback. Within only two days, he can give a valid assessment of the prototype variants, based on which he can develop a new product function.

A tool-supported approach for testing feedback allows you to obtain structured feedback quickly and easily.

When selecting the right tool, the following criteria should be kept in mind:

A. Does the tool offer the possibility for uploading various types of prototypes?

Example:

B. Is there a possibility for drawing up a scenario? This will give responding users the opportunity to see and understand the situation.

C. Does the tool enable us to ask predefined and open questions? It pays to spend much time on formulating the question, because it directly affects the feedback and its quality.

Examples of questions:

1. Evaluate the prototype with 1 star (poor) to 5 stars (really awesome).
2. What do you like about the prototype?
3. What would you change in the prototype?
4. . . .

D. Another key factor of success is the selection of the feedback community. Ideally, it should not be limited to one’s own organization (university, company, etc.) but instead include the possibility of inviting additional, freely definable respondents for a survey.

It is useful when experts within an existing community have the possibility of selecting their field of expertise (e.g., channel marketing, big data analytics, accounting). This makes it easier in actual practice to obtain fast feedback, such as from the experts with respect to their expert knowledge.

The dedicated selection of technically accomplished community participants can boost the quality of the feedback, but you should always consider the feedback of nonexperts as well; because they are less profesionally blinkered, they often have a fresh viewpoint.

EXPERT TIP
How do we visualize prototypesfor tests in digital tools?

A prototype is the visualization of an idea. It can be a sketch, a photo, a storyboard, or a chart. Any offer can be visualized as a prototype early on and made available to a tester community for feedback:

HOW MIGHT WE...conduct and document experiments in a structured way?

During the early phases of the innovation process, we frequently test several assumptions concurrently and learn on several levels. However, we recommend that you reflect before each test on what exactly you would like to learn and what the key question is. We also ask ourselves which assumptions we would like to test and how we can design the test scenario in such a way that the user can experience them.

Over the course of the further development of the product or service, we test our assumptions again and again and conduct experiments continuously. In the early phases of the innovation process, the prototypes are normally very simple. Often, several variables are tested at the same time. For the testing in later project stages, other types of experiments with customers (e.g., online tests, A/B testing, etc.) can be conducted. Here we usually focus on a single test variable or assumption.

It is of great importance that all tests/experiments be well defined. Documentation helps when tracing decisions later or showing an investor the success of an MVP. A simple experiment grid helps to structure the experiments and can be used to document the learning progress.

We want to learn as quickly and cost-effectively as possible; this is why we think about how the test (or the experiment) could be conducted in half the time and with half the resources. We ask ourselves whether there are variants that allow us to learn the same thing more quickly and economically.

The “experiment grid” helps define and document the tests/experiments:

In a first step, we describe the hypothesis we would like to test.

In a second step, the actual experiment is explained. The experiment can be a prototype we want to test with customers/users, an interview, a survey, and so forth.

In a third step, we define what we want to measure and which data should be collected. This can be a certain volume of positive feedback or just a specific value.

In a fourth step, we determine the criterion that shows whether we are on the right (or wrong) track. In the next step, we carry out the experiment and document our learnings, such as with photos or videos. At the end, we note the insights gained, the conclusions drawn, and what measures we will undertake. The tests/experiments must be well documented.

KEY LEARNINGS
Test prototype

• Define scenarios and a clear goal before the test.
• Involve neutral people when conducting the test; namely, people who did not build the prototype.
• Ask simple and open questions in testing; never suggestive questions. Always ask “why” in order to find out the underlying motivation.
• Don’t design the test to be too long. Concentrate on what is essential.
• Take along groups of stakeholders to the test (e.g., developers), so they can experience user feedback firsthand.
• Let the test persons think aloud and don’t interrupt them. Don’t try to influence them by steering them in one direction or selling the prototype as a great solution.
• Avoid the pitfall of relating too quickly or too much about how the prototype works.
• Document the tests, and always schedule enough time after a test to integrate the findings into a new prototype.
• Use Web-based tools for simple prototypes.
• Perform many qualitative tests with no more than five test persons in each one.