Stephen White 

 Design thinking Course – Coursera   Jan 2016   Page 1 of 2 

 Stephen White : Regional volunteering challenges   CHALLENGE   The challenge is to develop a region wide approach to volunteer development within a specific area   of South Australia .    The area contains a number of smaller size towns < 6000 people and several different local   government authorities ( LGA ) all operate relatively independently . The region is a predominantly   crop farming with the usual challenges of the same people , averaging 60 + years old , volunteering in   multiple organisations because ‘ no one else will do it ’ .   There are common issues across the entire   region but no one has previously suggested a region wide approach to consolidating these issues an   develop an approach to encouraging volunteering diversity in the region .    What does regional volunteer development look like ? Good question . This is the challenge we need   to explore . An outsider would suggest things like training , health and safety in the workplace , risk   management , governance and so on . But no one has asked the key stakeholders in the region . Their   understanding may look very different . This would suit a design thinking approach to circumnavigate   traditional thinking and develop new models of operating .     Selection   The tool selected was mind mapping . It was selected because some stakeholders may have had   exposure to it previously , but this could not be guaranteed ( both comfort and non - comfort zones ) .    The key focus would be the question posed ‘ What could a regional volunteer development plan look   like ? ’   We felt the tool would respect the diverse nature of the stakeholders and it was felt this might   achieve a number of things : unlock latent ideas ; challenge resistance from some individuals ; quieten   down or disempowering a number of individuals who always took over any group discussion because   their ideas were right ; empower individuals who were very quiet and rarely said anything yet we felt   they had good ideas ; providing a flexible environment where nothing was off the table ; encouraging   ideas   and engagement ; trying to identify patterns and potential outliers across the region ; present a   clear picture of the matters requiring further discussion .      Application    We posted information around the room from previous discussions :   including a sample survey of   the issues faced by volunteer organisations ; statistical evidence of volunteer rates and areas of   volunteer involvement ; comments made by senior management of impacted local government   authorities and their respective regional strategic plans ; the results of answers to previous questions   related to ‘ The challenges faced by volunteer organisations ’ .    As part of the introduction we went through this information and reiterated the question   emphasising nothing should be excluded no matter how crazy it may seem . Dollars would not be a   limiting factor . This would be taken up in a later discussion .   Individuals were provided with sticky notes and given 5 minutes on their own to record as many   possible answers to the question . Then they were given an additional 15 minutes to wander through   the room and write down any more possible answers looking at the materials posted up . Individuals   were encouraged to also record on a different colour sticky note any additional info they felt they   might need . They were then paired up for 5 minutes and repeated the exercise to see if discussions   could generate more ideas . Once completed , they were asked to sit in tables of 4 and told to group 

 Stephen White 

 Design thinking Course – Coursera   Jan 2009   Page 2 of 2 

 all their ideas and write a title or theme for each group .   The notes were grouped from all tables   together with the titles .    This worked well and gave everyone sufficient time to develop lots of ideas – enough to fill an entire   wall ! Going through to the ‘ So What ’ question was tougher and took participants a while to grasp ,   possibly because we were not clear enough in our initial explanation and had to lead them through   it . We did get useful information & participants said it was challenging but rewarding . I felt we could   have done it better and that we seemed to lose some momentum . We found answers to this   question challenged underlying assumptions to the theme . Eg training in risk was a clear standout .   Asking ‘ So What ? ’ revealed the underlying issue was risk aversion by LGA ’s rather than duty of care –   an important difference – one is protecting the organisation , the other is about protecting others .    Overall I was reasonably happy with the outcomes .      Insight   See earlier comment . Allowing freedom for individuals to think outside the square was important .   Freeing individuals who were quieter meant generating many more ideas and an increase in energy   generated in the group . I appreciated the release of imagination and loved seeing the enthusiasm   grow as people developed ideas . Even the resistant individuals managed to overcome their own   need for power and control and joined in . All ideas were treated with the same regard , no one idea   was more important . It was interesting and exciting to see major themes surface but also see   responses to themes which were unexpected . I must admit some came up I did not expect such as   shared facilities and management ; and youth development programs and qualifications .      Approach   After the success above we tried to fit the themes into a framework provided by National   Volunteering standards . This was a disaster !   It killed the enthusiasm and switched on the traditional   thinking approach . Even though we still used the mind mapping tool , it did n’t work . I think the   contrast was too great . Previously individuals were freed up to think and now we were expecting   them to conform to a pre established framework . A round peg in a square hole . It felt uncomfortable   and killed innovation .     I should have tried visualisation on the national standards . Participants could ‘ design ’ a regional   volunteer development plan through drawing – but in a different session . I think this approach   would definitely challenge folks but would hopefully release more creativity even though the focus   was on the national standards . We could then bring together the insights from this approach with   the other mind mapping and harmonise the two in a separate session . This approach combines the   traditional risk model via the standards but uses creativity to force individuals into approaching   them in a different way . Maybe next time ! 


EMAIL: 
ID_NUM: 
NAME_STUDENT: Stephen White, Stephen White, Stephen White
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: Stephen White 

 Design thinking Course – Coursera   Jan 2016   Page 1 of 2 

 Stephen White : Regional volunteering challenges   CHALLENGE   The challenge is to develop a region wide approach to volunteer development within a specific area   of South Australia .    The area contains a number of smaller size towns < 6000 people and several different local   government authorities ( LGA ) all operate relatively independently . The region is a predominantly   crop farming with the usual challenges of the same people , averaging 60 + years old , volunteering in   multiple organisations because ‘ no one else will do it ’ .   There are common issues across the entire   region but no one has previously suggested a region wide approach to consolidating these issues an   develop an approach to encouraging volunteering diversity in the region .    What does regional volunteer development look like ? Good question . This is the challenge we need   to explore . An outsider would suggest things like training , health and safety in the workplace , risk   management , governance and so on . But no one has asked the key stakeholders in the region . Their   understanding may look very different . This would suit a design thinking approach to circumnavigate   traditional thinking and develop new models of operating .     Selection   The tool selected was mind mapping . It was selected because some stakeholders may have had   exposure to it previously , but this could not be guaranteed ( both comfort and non - comfort zones ) .    The key focus would be the question posed ‘ What could a regional volunteer development plan look   like ? ’   We felt the tool would respect the diverse nature of the stakeholders and it was felt this might   achieve a number of things : unlock latent ideas ; challenge resistance from some individuals ; quieten   down or disempowering a number of individuals who always took over any group discussion because   their ideas were right ; empower individuals who were very quiet and rarely said anything yet we felt   they had good ideas ; providing a flexible environment where nothing was off the table ; encouraging   ideas   and engagement ; trying to identify patterns and potential outliers across the region ; present a   clear picture of the matters requiring further discussion .      Application    We posted information around the room from previous discussions :   including a sample survey of   the issues faced by volunteer organisations ; statistical evidence of volunteer rates and areas of   volunteer involvement ; comments made by senior management of impacted local government   authorities and their respective regional strategic plans ; the results of answers to previous questions   related to ‘ The challenges faced by volunteer organisations ’ .    As part of the introduction we went through this information and reiterated the question   emphasising nothing should be excluded no matter how crazy it may seem . Dollars would not be a   limiting factor . This would be taken up in a later discussion .   Individuals were provided with sticky notes and given 5 minutes on their own to record as many   possible answers to the question . Then they were given an additional 15 minutes to wander through   the room and write down any more possible answers looking at the materials posted up . Individuals   were encouraged to also record on a different colour sticky note any additional info they felt they   might need . They were then paired up for 5 minutes and repeated the exercise to see if discussions   could generate more ideas . Once completed , they were asked to sit in tables of 4 and told to group 

 Stephen White 

 Design thinking Course – Coursera   Jan 2009   Page 2 of 2 

 all their ideas and write a title or theme for each group .   The notes were grouped from all tables   together with the titles .    This worked well and gave everyone sufficient time to develop lots of ideas – enough to fill an entire   wall ! Going through to the ‘ So What ’ question was tougher and took participants a while to grasp ,   possibly because we were not clear enough in our initial explanation and had to lead them through   it . We did get useful information & participants said it was challenging but rewarding . I felt we could   have done it better and that we seemed to lose some momentum . We found answers to this   question challenged underlying assumptions to the theme . Eg training in risk was a clear standout .   Asking ‘ So What ? ’ revealed the underlying issue was risk aversion by LGA ’s rather than duty of care –   an important difference – one is protecting the organisation , the other is about protecting others .    Overall I was reasonably happy with the outcomes .      Insight   See earlier comment . Allowing freedom for individuals to think outside the square was important .   Freeing individuals who were quieter meant generating many more ideas and an increase in energy   generated in the group . I appreciated the release of imagination and loved seeing the enthusiasm   grow as people developed ideas . Even the resistant individuals managed to overcome their own   need for power and control and joined in . All ideas were treated with the same regard , no one idea   was more important . It was interesting and exciting to see major themes surface but also see   responses to themes which were unexpected . I must admit some came up I did not expect such as   shared facilities and management ; and youth development programs and qualifications .      Approach   After the success above we tried to fit the themes into a framework provided by National   Volunteering standards . This was a disaster !   It killed the enthusiasm and switched on the traditional   thinking approach . Even though we still used the mind mapping tool , it did n’t work . I think the   contrast was too great . Previously individuals were freed up to think and now we were expecting   them to conform to a pre established framework . A round peg in a square hole . It felt uncomfortable   and killed innovation .     I should have tried visualisation on the national standards . Participants could ‘ design ’ a regional   volunteer development plan through drawing – but in a different session . I think this approach   would definitely challenge folks but would hopefully release more creativity even though the focus   was on the national standards . We could then bring together the insights from this approach with   the other mind mapping and harmonise the two in a separate session . This approach combines the   traditional risk model via the standards but uses creativity to force individuals into approaching   them in a different way . Maybe next time !
### Output: 