Our collaborative work for the Experimentation Phase of the Design Thinking (DT) process began with a review of our DT challenge, increasing involvement of underrepresented parent groups and revisiting and aligning our DT questions. Particularly, we are concerned with how we might better address issues of communication and access to increase parental involvement and support at school and at home. Following this, we reviewed the point of view and needs of our end user (our parents) with emphasis on underrepresented parent groups. These parents need better modes of communication, access to and entry points for support services and resources because of the language barriers and inequities that exist between parent groups. Our solution to this challenge involved developing a website capable of streamlining the modes of communication so that resources are consistently updated, can be accessed from several locations using any device, and are more accessible for all parent groups. At this point in the process, we were ready to develop prototypes of our parent website. Our first two Prototypes A and B had visual appeal and many of our parents’ needs. Prototype C was missing the layout, but was more comprehensive of requirements to meet parental needs. Our final product, Prototype D using the Weebly platform— was a synthesis of Prototypes A-C. For a more in depth view of this process, see our shared Google Slide Presentation below. This platform afforded ease of use for our users and connectivity to social media, as well as to already established school sites.
Experimentation phase—increasing parental involvement and support
To test our prototype prior to full development, we crafted it to receive feedback from our end users and from our colleagues. We asked those viewing our design thinking process and final prototype the following questions:
- Whether the Parent Connection site meets their needs?
- Which parts of the site are the most useful?
- Which aspects of the site were confusing?
- What parts of the site need to be changed or modified?
- What parts of the site do not work and need to go back to R & D?
Our team discussed, categorized, and reevaluated our final prototype over Google Hangouts based on the feedback we received to better refine our end product. We also examined what did not work? And what needed to be further investigated? Overall, we received more positive reviews of our product than we initially were expecting. Probably the main concerns of those reviewing our final product/version of the parent website was whether we’d be able to get the needed “buy-in” from key stakeholders (our parents and teachers)? And whether we’d be able to streamline the site to meet parent needs without sacrificing usability. Among items needing further investigation were the details of how a mobile device checkout program would work for parents, additional costs/budget concerns, sustainability and ongoing evaluation/monitoring, how our social media campaign would roll-out, and the selection of a startup team to further refine and develop our website.
Individual contribution to this week's work
In terms of collaboration, this became much more streamlined than previously. It seems we have developed a system that works. Online collaboration is more efficient and expectations are clearer. Challenges included technical difficulties in getting our presentations uploaded to Youtube and/or Google Drive. Although I uploaded and checked my work earlier, I did not attempt to view it from multiple browsers (this was a great lesson as I know now what browsers it can be viewed in and have a plan if this occurs in the future).
Next time, would you do anything differently to better the process?
I used Google Draw for my Prototypes of the website. I thought this was an excellent idea, but with more time, I might have set-up a prototype on Weebly. Our team had discussed this as an option, but decided against it because the site would not several missing links and basically would be under construction, yet would require us to publish it in order to get feedback on it. We agreed hosting the parent website on Weebly when we are really to field test it, would be a better ideas and is in the works if we move forward in rolling out our design.
How would this process differ if implemented with actual end users? What would you need to take into consideration?
If implemented with actual end users, this idea would probably need to include a way for them to field test the website. This is an essential part in the process, as it would allow our team to trouble-shoot many of the issues we may run up against.
How can the revolutionized idea of collaboration in the 21st century add to the DT process? Elaborate on some possibilities.
Collaboration in the 21st century has changed from how it was used previously in that we have a greater opportunity to learn from and work collaboratively with individuals representing diverse cultures, religions and lifestyles, and have access to experts across the globe to collaborate with and further the design of our end product. Those with the ability to work fluidly around the globe and who are able to leverage technology will definitely have a comparative advantage over those who do not possess these skills.
Individual contribution to this week's work
- Set-up shared Google Document with what was required, including a checklist and rubric
- Organized team workflow and recommended process to follow
- Developed Prototype A and Final Prototype D (our team voted for my Prototype A) so it made more sense for me to design the synthesis of Prototypes A-C after our team agreed on what elements should be included in the final prototype.
- Agreed to take-on Part 4 of the presentation—The Solution to our DT challenge in terms of the presentation on our shared Google Slides.
- Shared all of our work with our professors
In terms of collaboration, this became much more streamlined than previously. It seems we have developed a system that works. Online collaboration is more efficient and expectations are clearer. Challenges included technical difficulties in getting our presentations uploaded to Youtube and/or Google Drive. Although I uploaded and checked my work earlier, I did not attempt to view it from multiple browsers (this was a great lesson as I know now what browsers it can be viewed in and have a plan if this occurs in the future).
Next time, would you do anything differently to better the process?
I used Google Draw for my Prototypes of the website. I thought this was an excellent idea, but with more time, I might have set-up a prototype on Weebly. Our team had discussed this as an option, but decided against it because the site would not several missing links and basically would be under construction, yet would require us to publish it in order to get feedback on it. We agreed hosting the parent website on Weebly when we are really to field test it, would be a better ideas and is in the works if we move forward in rolling out our design.
How would this process differ if implemented with actual end users? What would you need to take into consideration?
If implemented with actual end users, this idea would probably need to include a way for them to field test the website. This is an essential part in the process, as it would allow our team to trouble-shoot many of the issues we may run up against.
How can the revolutionized idea of collaboration in the 21st century add to the DT process? Elaborate on some possibilities.
Collaboration in the 21st century has changed from how it was used previously in that we have a greater opportunity to learn from and work collaboratively with individuals representing diverse cultures, religions and lifestyles, and have access to experts across the globe to collaborate with and further the design of our end product. Those with the ability to work fluidly around the globe and who are able to leverage technology will definitely have a comparative advantage over those who do not possess these skills.
RSS Feed