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

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

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

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

 TOOL :    Mind Mapping 

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

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

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


EMAIL: 
ID_NUM: 
NAME_STUDENT: Karina Starks
PHONE_NUM: 
STREET_ADDRESS: 
URL_PERSONAL: 
USERNAME: 

### Task: You are a PII (Personal Identity Information) Detection. Given a essays written by students, you have to identify ONLY the following:
NAME_STUDENT - The full or partial name of a student that is not necessarily the author of the essay. This excludes instructors, authors, and other person names.
EMAIL - A student’s email address.
USERNAME - A student's username on any platform.
ID_NUM - A number or sequence of characters that could be used to identify a student, such as a student ID or a social security number.
PHONE_NUM - A phone number associated with a student.
URL_PERSONAL - A URL that might be used to identify a student.
STREET_ADDRESS - A full or partial street address that is associated with the student, such as their home address.
### Input: COURSERA :   DESIGN THINKING FOR INNOVATION    Instructor :    Sue Abdeldayem , UVa 

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

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

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

 TOOL :    Mind Mapping 

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

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

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