Chris Hammond – Design Thinking for Innovation – Reflection Activity : Mind Mapping 

 Challenge 

 I work in consulting , and a major retailer asked us to help them understand how they could make   their in - store environments “ more digital ” . They have a long - term plan to move towards stores   which are almost fully automated and wanted to understand how they could design a store which   moved in this direction . Their brief to us was to assess ‘ what is ’ – that is , the current in - store   experience for customers and staff , and explore how staff and customers in different countries   would want to experience stores in the future . From this , we could then define ‘ what if ’ – the criteria   needed to develop a prototype store , and ideas about what the experience should be like . 

 Selection 

 We ’ve worked with design thinking methodologies in the past , and given our objective was to help   define ‘ what if ’ we opted for a version of the mind - mapping tool . However , as the project was   international , had a limited budget and was fast - turnaround , we opted not to bring customers into   the room at the end of the project ( co - creation , which is how this technique is explained in the video   lectures ) . Instead we would capture their views through qualitative research and play this back to   stakeholders in the mind - mapping session . 

 Application 

 We started off by conducting our qualitative research in different countries . This meant going to the   stores , interviewing staff and customers , capturing pictures and video of the store environments and   also recording how long customers spent in store , where they went , and so - on . From this we created   a detailed picture of ‘ what is ’ , which includes current customer journey maps for the highest priority   customer missions our client was interested in ( e.g. buying a new product , upgrading their existing   product , and more ) . 

 Subsequently we brought together all of the key stakeholders that had an interest in this problem in   a workshop , and started off by giving them an overview of ‘ what is ’ . We put up pictures , video and   other research materials on the walls , and after our overview asked clients to immerse themselves in   these findings on their own . A few minutes later we put them into small groups to discuss what   they ’d seen and come up with some common themes about the current experience and how it could   be improved . 

 Next , we facilitated a discussion amongst everyone in the room to draw out these themes , and then   together we wrote ‘ what if ’ customer journeys – that is , ideally how customers would want their   store experience to go . Once we ’d created an overview of these journeys together , each individual   came up with ideas about how to deliver this and wrote them on post - it notes , before placing them   under the relevant part of the ‘ what if ’ customer journey . The final step was to review these ideas as   a group and decide which were the most promising , which we did via dot voting ( giving everyone   stickers and asking them to place them on the ideas they thought best ) . 

 Insight 

 We learnt a lot from this approach . Three insights stood out for me : 

 •   We disconfirmed a hypothesis we had started the project with – that quick service was   important for all customers . In fact , we found this varied by a lot by mission ( i.e. what the   customer was trying to achieve ) . People who had come to the store with a specific problem   to be solved wanted someone to come and talk to them straight away , but those thinking   about buying a new product appreciated a bit more time alone to browse , get comfortable   etc . 

 •   Therefore , we needed to target staff on people wanting to solve problems ; those browsing   were often happier interacting with machines than people . This meant that the store would   need different zones , with a different atmosphere and different levels of technology . 

 •   One thing that emerged as a big problem for customers was waiting – once a customer had   decided what they want to do , they were only prepared to wait a few minutes to get it done .   This meant we needed to focus on using both technology and people to minimise waiting   times , and also make the store environment more pleasant and entertaining ( to reduce the   pain of waiting ) . 

 Approach 

 We found conducting detailed research before the workshop and then giving an overview to   stakeholders was immensely helpful – this primed them on what we were trying to achieve and   helped focus their minds . However , not being able to have real customers in the workshop was a   downside – I think this would have really helped our clients understand the problems they were   trying to solve . These customers could also have helped come up with new ideas ( co - creation ) ,   which can be a really effective ( and fun ) technique . 


EMAIL: 
ID_NUM: 
NAME_STUDENT: Chris Hammond
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: Chris Hammond – Design Thinking for Innovation – Reflection Activity : Mind Mapping 

 Challenge 

 I work in consulting , and a major retailer asked us to help them understand how they could make   their in - store environments “ more digital ” . They have a long - term plan to move towards stores   which are almost fully automated and wanted to understand how they could design a store which   moved in this direction . Their brief to us was to assess ‘ what is ’ – that is , the current in - store   experience for customers and staff , and explore how staff and customers in different countries   would want to experience stores in the future . From this , we could then define ‘ what if ’ – the criteria   needed to develop a prototype store , and ideas about what the experience should be like . 

 Selection 

 We ’ve worked with design thinking methodologies in the past , and given our objective was to help   define ‘ what if ’ we opted for a version of the mind - mapping tool . However , as the project was   international , had a limited budget and was fast - turnaround , we opted not to bring customers into   the room at the end of the project ( co - creation , which is how this technique is explained in the video   lectures ) . Instead we would capture their views through qualitative research and play this back to   stakeholders in the mind - mapping session . 

 Application 

 We started off by conducting our qualitative research in different countries . This meant going to the   stores , interviewing staff and customers , capturing pictures and video of the store environments and   also recording how long customers spent in store , where they went , and so - on . From this we created   a detailed picture of ‘ what is ’ , which includes current customer journey maps for the highest priority   customer missions our client was interested in ( e.g. buying a new product , upgrading their existing   product , and more ) . 

 Subsequently we brought together all of the key stakeholders that had an interest in this problem in   a workshop , and started off by giving them an overview of ‘ what is ’ . We put up pictures , video and   other research materials on the walls , and after our overview asked clients to immerse themselves in   these findings on their own . A few minutes later we put them into small groups to discuss what   they ’d seen and come up with some common themes about the current experience and how it could   be improved . 

 Next , we facilitated a discussion amongst everyone in the room to draw out these themes , and then   together we wrote ‘ what if ’ customer journeys – that is , ideally how customers would want their   store experience to go . Once we ’d created an overview of these journeys together , each individual   came up with ideas about how to deliver this and wrote them on post - it notes , before placing them   under the relevant part of the ‘ what if ’ customer journey . The final step was to review these ideas as   a group and decide which were the most promising , which we did via dot voting ( giving everyone   stickers and asking them to place them on the ideas they thought best ) . 

 Insight 

 We learnt a lot from this approach . Three insights stood out for me : 

 •   We disconfirmed a hypothesis we had started the project with – that quick service was   important for all customers . In fact , we found this varied by a lot by mission ( i.e. what the   customer was trying to achieve ) . People who had come to the store with a specific problem   to be solved wanted someone to come and talk to them straight away , but those thinking   about buying a new product appreciated a bit more time alone to browse , get comfortable   etc . 

 •   Therefore , we needed to target staff on people wanting to solve problems ; those browsing   were often happier interacting with machines than people . This meant that the store would   need different zones , with a different atmosphere and different levels of technology . 

 •   One thing that emerged as a big problem for customers was waiting – once a customer had   decided what they want to do , they were only prepared to wait a few minutes to get it done .   This meant we needed to focus on using both technology and people to minimise waiting   times , and also make the store environment more pleasant and entertaining ( to reduce the   pain of waiting ) . 

 Approach 

 We found conducting detailed research before the workshop and then giving an overview to   stakeholders was immensely helpful – this primed them on what we were trying to achieve and   helped focus their minds . However , not being able to have real customers in the workshop was a   downside – I think this would have really helped our clients understand the problems they were   trying to solve . These customers could also have helped come up with new ideas ( co - creation ) ,   which can be a really effective ( and fun ) technique .
### Output: 