How do external influences shape Design Thinking processes?

A case study by Stefan Schmieden

Neugelb follows different design and work principles depending on the context, but one methodology we promote at all times is user centric design.

One toolbox that we work and live by is Design Thinking. Design Thinking isn't anything brand new, it has been there ever since the 90s. However, in times of ever emerging new technologies, different ways of how we interact within digital landscapes and shifts of mindsets within our societies, Design Thinking managed to stay relevant because with new possibilities, new needs arise as well.

Since we are privileged to have several experts from the aforementioned topic in our team, we would never keep all of this knowledge without sharing it especially with upcoming generations. Ever year our mother company, Commerzbank, hires trainees from the field of International Design Development as well as IT and other programs.

Check all opportunities of the IDDP traineeship here.

As a Design Thinking coach I had the chance to join three offsites throughout this year in order to teach the trainees about Design Thinking. However, as we all may know, this year (2021) has been a special one for on-site formats. With the pandemic making it almost impossible to meet up in person in the year of 2020 we were able to host the first events in person again.

Our workshops with the trainees took place at the Collegium in Glashütten, a lovely place in the gorgeous Taunus close to our Frankfurt office. For two whole days we went through the whole Design Thinking process with a fictional, but applicable challenge that the trainees had to solve. The challenge as well as current external factors were always adjusted to the target group in order to create a fictional challenge that is/was as relevant as possible.

As we mentioned, we had three different workshops with two different challenges. The first challenge for the trainees within the first half of the year was “Redesign the commuting process for trainees during a global pandemic”. This challenge was particularly suitable for the first half of 2021, since the offices had been reopened which made it possible for the trainees to commute. In the second half of 2021 hybrid working models became a new norm and with this also new challenges emerged. Therefore, the task for the groups in the second half of the year was “Redesign work life for trainees after a pandemic”. Frankly, we were a little enthusiastic by assuming the pandemic would be over around that time. However, there were glimpses of normality coming back to our everyday lives, hence this challenge was enabling the trainees to think about possible outlooks on what work life is going to become in the near future.

You must think that results may have been similar throughout the events… well, we thought so too based on previous workshop and mentoring experiences, but this time things were a little different than usual. The key impact that changed the outcomes significantly were external factors that had drastic impacts on our daily lives. Enhanced public hygiene measures, social distancing, working from home, lockdowns… all those things are factors that we haven't experienced during our Design Thinking workshops before Covid and the way the trainees reacted to those factors was fluctuating immensely with every workshop throughout the year.

Let's have a more detailed look at our first group in the beginning of 2021. To give you some context: We were still in a lockdown, there were harsh restrictions, vaccines were only available for priority groups and local case numbers were skyrocketing. As aforementioned, our first group handled the challenge of redesigning their commute during these testing times. To gather user insights, we divided the groups into two teams, so they had the chance to conduct interviews with each other. Through these interviews we learned that we had two different kinds of commuters: The ones who need to switch their means of transport more than 2 times and travel larger distances and the short distance commuters.

Through analyzing our interview data, we came up with various persona prototypes and correlated empathy maps. However, we had to keep in mind that our personas were mirror images of the trainees themselves, since they interviewed each other and not externals. This is a truly interesting insight because the user needs we elaborated on were needs we encountered ourselves, when we switched from a problem identification mindset into problem-solving mode.

Considering the fact that the overall fear regarding the pandemic of this particular group was fairly high in relation to later groups of trainees, it is no surprise that the focus on hygiene and privacy for commutes was a main concern. But who wasn't afraid catching a globally roaming virus around that time? Probably almost everybody. So, what kind of deeper needs could we address with our prototypes?

Working from home has been practiced for years, but only recently it spread to the wide masses. Especially for people who used to go to work every day and who live with others who also suddenly needed to work remotely. This situation was a huge invasion to privacy. Only when people could commute at least on some days and have a work life balance again, getting to work and coming home was a way of shifting your mindset into different modes again. There are certain tasks that just work well during a commute. At least in our group of trainees low priority tasks such as answering non urgent mails, planning the tasks for the upcoming day as well as non-work-related tasks like catching up with people by calling them from the train, reading a book, and/or checking your socials were things that were predestined for longer commutes.

So, with what kind of solutions for these needs did our group come up with? Since we had two different groups, we ended up with two slightly different approaches: The first prototype was focused on enjoying the peace during your commute, using it as a space for calming down in privacy, secure from Covid due to high hygiene standards and blurry lines between work and private life. The second prototype was more focused on helping the users to achieve the low-priority tasks without any hassle and any fear of Covid. Both concepts were premium services for commuters who had the need to find their safe isle of peace during a commute in times of high case numbers.

Let us fast forward a couple of months. Case numbers dropped significantly, lockdowns were lifted, a fresh breeze of normality and warm spring vibes made us all displace the seriousness of the Covid situation a little. Again, we had the chance to teach the trainees of Commerzbank about Design Thinking and even though things changed in between, we decided to stick with the same challenge as with the previous group to see if there are differences in the way how they approach the problems at hand. To put the differences regarding the results in perspective: Group 1 in the beginning of the year put a huge emphasis on hygiene concepts and the general focus was clearly on the topic of safety. Group 2 in spring, obviously shaped by the external circumstances, didn't even think about putting up a disinfection system within their prototypes. The aspect of security was basically not thought of at all. Keep in mind, we have a very similar target group of participants, demographics were mainly the same, also the challenge didn't change. Just the time and the resulting external perception of things shifted and got implemented within the Design Thinking process accordingly.

Suddenly safety needs didn't play a major role anymore since a certain degree of safety was perceived by the trainees. Surprisingly, the solutions that the group came up with went more in the direction of adapting potential future mega trends, e.g., sharing & circular economy, and quality of commute improvements. Naturally remnants of the impact of the pandemic were still graspable, e.g., the need for privacy during your commute, but we can′t stress enough how different the problem identification and problem-solving approaches were compared to the first group. The trainees generally weren't up for going to the office. The advantages of home office overwhelmed the need for socializing in the office space and pretty much everyone had a decent home office set up by now. Accordingly, the focus was on the painstaking part of getting to the office: The commute. Therefore, the resulting “how might we” question after our data synthesis was going more towards improvements for working conditions during a commute through tech like augmented and virtual reality, i.e., a virtual office space that can be used in designated areas of a train. Basically, the prototypes could have been from a group that never heard of Covid before, but wanted to make the working experience on a commute a little more playful and incentivizing.

Let us fast forward one last time… It is the end of summer 2021 and life in Germany feels quite normal. Case numbers are in the single digits nationwide. You can pretty much do everything that you did before the pandemic again and lots of people are vaccinated. That also applies to our last trainee group of 2021. Guessing that there are higher office attendance rates in our trainee group, we decided to change up our challenge, shifting the focus more towards redesigning work life after a pandemic.

What we learned about getting used to hybrid working models was the fact that the little things we took for granted in the office (e.g., walking to your fellow work colleague and asking for some advice on something and other social interactions) were harmed by hybrid working models. Remote work is here to stay, but offices are opening again as well. Accordingly, the focus of our last trainee group laid on bringing social interactions from normal office life into our home offices. Our data synthesis showed us that our trainees could divide their tasks quite well into two main categories: Things you prefer to do at home and things that just work better in the office. What the group came up with as their prototype was a mixture of a social network that enables social interactions between remote and on-site colleagues as well as gamification features that help a workforce to maintain their organizational culture at home as well as in the office.

To sum it up: We had three different groups in three different time frames with three different external situations that shaped the Design Thinking process in three different ways. What does that teach us about applying the Design Thinking toolbox? First and foremost, we are very aware that rushing through a whole Design Thinking process in two days for learning purposes does not reflect a business case. What we can derive from our insights is the fact that Design Thinking in its initial form is supposed to be a lengthy process. Especially during the exploration phase, it is utterly important to not just collect primary data, but also have a look at the world around the users. What trends may emerge, what is the state of upcoming technology, how is the probability of mass adaption and what other threats and opportunities may arise in and after the Design Thinking process? When Design Thinking ends, the “classic” production process begins, and that process takes additional time as well. All those things need to be considered to make a viable product not just for now, but also for the future.

Looking at the world at the time being is not enough, only looking at user needs is not enough and especially volatile times like our current situation require the evaluation of the past and the current conditions in order to make legitimate predictions of what could be in the future. What could be an innovation today, could be trash tomorrow and therefore we urge Design Thinkers to not rush things if the budget allows it. If you want to do things fast Design Thinking may be the wrong method for you, but if external factors are unknown and you truly only know what your problems are or may be Design Thinking could be the right tool for you.

?