shannondseeger-blog

[shannondseeger-blog]

Process Reflection

Now that we are (almost) done with this process, I look back and see the critical role each phase played in getting us to where we are, but I also see the malleability of each.

Acceptance – I felt that this was the least concrete of the phases. I understand, emotionally, why you need to create the foundation for the rigorous process you’re about to enter but it seemed challengingly vague. I almost wonder if it might be better placed after the Definition phase, when you’ve invested time in understanding and figuring out your problem. As we have seen in relationships, it’s far easier to commit once you’ve dated for awhile.

Analysis – A critical phase that was also a non-phase, because we did it constantly! I do think you need to have dedicated research time early on, but it could almost be Part B of each subsequent phase to ensure that you’re meeting the goals in a substantive way. A repository of information is critical to this phase as you’ll need to refer and add to it as you continue.

Definition – Reflecting on my team’s process and also observing other teams, I see two critical elements to this phase. First of all, the “how might we” question works because, though this is a convergent phase, you still need to be open enough to explore. The question gives you license to do that. Second, and most importantly, no team could arrive at their definition without feedback. We were a little like museum newbies staring at a Monet – we were stuck in the blobs and needed human intervention to help us see waterlilies.

Ideation – Honestly, this is not possible without sticky notes (even virtual ones) and an open-minded team. You could do a ton of damage here if you don’t consider all possibilities. I will be keeping all the notes from our asynch, but I’ll need to refer back to the Ideation ones the most (I suspect). Reminding yourself to be open is at least the first step towards actually being open.

The Valley between Ideation and Selection – If I had to add a phase, here it is! Ideation was so divergent that I think a herding period might be necessary to get all of the cows back in the barn. I would consider this a Trial phase, or a preliminary Evaluation phase, where you test your ideas a little more thoroughly before landing on one. It’s also possible that this just felt rushed because of our understandable time constraints, and another phase isn’t needed.

Selection – I’m not sure how a convergent phase felt so divergent, but it did! Selection in theory seems like a binary process (this one yes, that one no), but our project had so many features that it was more of a multiple choice test that continue through the rest of the project. This was a good thing, though, and is probably how our iterative design process manifested.

Implementation – I am so glad we took two weeks on this because I think this is the biggest time-eater of them all. In the real world, this could take years and really never be finished, in constant tug of war with Evaluation. I liked that we had “visuals” to hold on to here, because it reminds you that you have to leave divergence behind.

Evaluation – This was the most challenging in the context of this project. The rubric I set for myself in my mind was quite simple – do your classmates care/get it? – but in the real world, there are innumerable criteria you could test yourself on, and even some established processes you could borrow. You may consider setting benchmarks and evaluation criteria far earlier on in the process, perhaps after Definition. It is a little challenging to do this later on.

Ultimately, I have felt (both in the IPR and this project) that the outcome isn’t possible without the process. The activities of each phase both limited and opened up our activities in productive ways, leading to incremental but valuable progress. Embracing the uncertainty of your direction is an important part of what you do when you embark on a creative problem solving process, and I’m sure this looked different for all of us. I’m sure it will look different next time we do it, too!

[shannondseeger-blog]

Evaluation

For much of this project, and most notably in this evaluation phase, we’ve had each foot planted in a different world:

One where we’re working with a concept, money is pretend, and the realm of possibility is our ceiling

One where we’re talking about a physical product, money is green, and a lot of technical things could go wrong

In the first world (which happens to be reality), we’ve relied heavily on our class to help keep us in check. When I consider the methods and techniques discussed this week, it seems to be a combination of Jury of Peers, though a little less formal, and A Plan for Improvement. We are so entrenched in our work that taking a step back to hear an outside opinion has been critical to helping us understand where we have room for improvement. The honest yet kind feedback is so helpful. I fully believe that if our class doesn’t think our product is feasible, viable, or desirable, then that is the most telling indicator that it won’t work. Conversely, if we get the thumbs up, then it’s a success.

In the second world, there are all sorts of formal processes we would have to employ to make sure our product worked. We have hardware elements, software elements, and physical elements to road test, as well as safety requirement that we would have to meet. Our Jury would become a test group of users, too, who could help us understand how this works for a sample group. If we were to fabricate the hard hat in real life, I could see the evaluation phase taking the longest amount of time out of the seven phases, and requiring many iterations and re-designs.

Whichever foot you’re leaning on, I think each of the three of us works in the Personal Best technique naturally. It’s a little more formalized by our journaling requirement (which is great), but I’ve noticed that we organically have attempted to make our product better by an intrinsic desire to be better. The competition isn’t internal to group, it’s internal for each member.

I’ve toyed with a simple rubric for evaluating our classmates. It has five statements, and you rate each on a five- or ten-point scale (I’m not sure which is more fair yet), and then answer why or why not for each.

The problem definition is clear.

Product/idea provides a solution to the defined problem.

Solution is feasible.

Solution is viable.

Solution is desirable.

It feels a little subjective but our projects are all so diverse that I’m hesitant to be less vague. I’m curious to see where others have landed!

[shannondseeger-blog]

Conceptualize It

Full deck available here.

[shannondseeger-blog]

Implementation

Team Onspyre met twice this week to iron out our plan for the Implementation phase. In our first meeting, it was useful to have the Business Model Canvas to focus on. We found a collaborative one that we could all use simultaneously and I think it’s reflective of our discussion as well as items that we individually felt were important (and the group agreed). As such, it got pretty detailed but, as Nelson put it, shows “the overall vision”.

We next focused in on how we were going to communicate that vision and the specific solution we had landed on. We had the added motivation of coming from our class discussion where we hadn’t quite been able to sell the idea to our audience. We wanted to rethink how we might breathe life and add heart back into what we had selected to get our peers back on board. I wrote up the ideas we kept coming back to below:

Wireframes of the companion app (Collaborative)

Product model/sketch (Collaborative, but Nelson will attempt to build a prototype)

Diagram of design process: Research > Design > Testing > Product (Warren)

Storyboard (Warren describes this beautifully here)

“Testimonials” or experiences from Nelson’s colleagues who have first-hand knowledge

Safety incident videos to show traditional training methods/give examples (Nelson will collect)

Visuals and narrative seemed like a good place to start in order to bring some of the human element back in. We will combine the best of the above in a final multi-media presentation that I think will simultaneously soften and enhance some of the heavily technical elements of our idea. It was also a good time to re-commit to our group roles.

We’re prepared, and have already, moved back in and out of some of the previous phases as we envision the final ones. To quote Warren: “The process for design is rarely linear”, and we’re try to give our idea some room to breathe (even with two weeks left).

[shannondseeger-blog]

Business Model Canvas

Onspyre created this Business Model Canvas collaboratively using an online tool, Canvanizer. If you would like to see the read-only link to our Canvas, that is here. As you’ll see shortly, we liked the format for capturing detail. 

@warren-usc managed to capture it all in one shot, here. 

When I attempted the same, mine just looked like this:

Utterly illegible! So here it is in bite-size pieces:

[shannondseeger-blog]

Selection

We began our Selection phase by reviewing our Ideation chart and creating an outline with our critical objectives. When we presented our solution ideas to the class, the concept of endowing personal protective equipment with technology was our winner. After walking through our solution options, we were pretty happy to “give the people what they want” and selected smart PPE as our solution.

Broad solution: We will modulate body and mind by embedding technology into the personal protective equipment already used in the industries where workers are at a high risk.

There was an entire iceberg hiding underneath. We discussed all manner of different PPE, the modulation options, and our different objectives. We had defined necessary objectives earlier on and we needed to be true to them. It was a moment of divergence in our convergent activity. We decided to split up and apply the Kepner-Tregoe method on our own, then come back together and see where we aligned, didn’t align, and identify any unusual but intriguing connections.

Interestingly enough, we each had different approaches to the K-T method. I created a matrix with objectives ranked 1-10, Warren had a categorized features list where he applied importance ranks, and Nelson had a points system and heatmap for his. It was reminiscent of our morphological analysis phase. I was stuck by our interpretations of the process but also reassured that it worked anyway: we ended up being pretty aligned.

Our follow-up discussion felt easy after that. We decided that protective eyewear would be most useful to a broader audience and was also a great option to include the bio-sensors and modulation techniques we had discussed. We could include an EEG to read brainwaves as well as an sEMG to read muscle movement (the latter is necessary to weed out the body’s “white noise” that might disrupt the EEG). Audio modulation was possible in this scenario, too, which is something that Warren really liked. Our only compromise was deciding that we would create a minimum viable product instead of the tricked-out one we could all picture. In some ways, that was a relief because we could table some features with the idea that we could return to them if we ever created a version 2. Even so, we kept a few “nice to have” ideas around to toy with in our next phase.

For posterity and in the spirit of total transparency, I will admit that Selection was the most difficult phase so far. Our group dynamic continues to be agreeable and we still tend to be on the same page about everything we discuss. I am so grateful for this as I know it could be different. The rub is the actual solution: we had so many mix-and-match features that could accomplish necessary objectives that narrowing down was a challenge. I think we (briefly and not hopelessly) fell victim to one of the pitfalls of the Decision Maker’s Checklist: too many options. It wasn’t a matter of “just pick one” for each category. Instead, it was about determining the minimum we could do without compromising the integrity of the solution or our vision. In the end, I’m really happy with where we landed and am looking forward to figuring out Implementation.

[shannondseeger-blog]

Choosing a Solution

Onspyre got together this week (a few times!) and worked through our solution process in phases. The below is in reverse chronological order: the discussion at the bottom happened first, then we went off and worked on our Kepner-Tregoe analyses (just mine included, but @well-being-tech and @warren-usc have posted theirs), and finally narrowed to our solution outline, below. In the outline, N2H stands for our “nice to have” elements. 

Solution: Smart Protective Eyewear

Must meet safety requirements for impact as well as heat and chemical resistance.

Monitoring tech:

A combination (EEG, sEMG)

Body temperature

Heart rate

Motion

Additional tech:

Companion mobile app (iOS, Android)

AR for messages/images to be displayed

Audio

N2H: AI/Machine learning (could be deployed in v2)

N2H: Location/Cam: Hazard recognition (could be deployed in v2)

Modulation:

Alerts/prompts to raise awareness

Pulsing or vibration

Audio guidance - music, guided breathing, mindfulness exercises, safety tips

N2H: Bio-modulation (i.e. light, vagus nerve)

Guidance, Proactivity:

Preferences - allows user to customize level and type of modulation

Device prompts you to self-report state of mind and emotions to help validate information inferred from data.

Data:

Dashboard that displays user’s historical data. User can choose level of engagement.

Personal data available only to the user

Anonymous data available in the aggregate for insight gathering

Criteria used:

Established goals (elements and outcomes our product must have) and weighed ideas to accomplish/exhibit these

For a first phase release, determined features that would fit into a minimum viable product, saving additional features for future releases

Determine minimum tech that monitors physiological data and add-ons that would be beneficial

Consider user concerns such as privacy and level of modulation

Pragmatic & Logistical concerns?

Complex ideas like machine learning, bio-modulations

Integrating the different sensors and bio-modulation options.

Regulations: bio-modulations, certification of safety glasses, potential OSHA input

Workers may feel they would be under more scrutiny and pressured to provide data in court of law

Compromises: Decided to begin with an MVP (version 1) product for these purposes.

Technique: Big Questions; Criteria from Brain Storm clusters; Kepner-Tregoe Method: used individually; Validation from revisiting analysis stage (morphological analysis)

My Approach to Kepner-Tregoe

Discussion:

Solution Ideas

Embedded in personal protective equipment

hard hat,

steel-toed boots,

protective vests,

gloves,

goggles/eyewear: core solution; all else can be an add-on accessory

respiratory protection

Smart watch

Tattoo or flat wearable

Jewelry, pendant

Smart environment

Steering wheel, controls, tools

Modulation set (Mr. Potato Head)

 Features Ideas by Goal

Monitor different states

EEG

Heart rate

Emotion sensor

Muscles sEMG (face tension?)

Breath rate

Body temperature (helps track circadian rhythm)

Modulate user awareness

Vagus nerve stimulation

Light stimulation

Neuropriming

Vibration or pulses

Music

Audio coach

Reminders

Alerts

Exercises

Historical tracking (trends over time)

Based on data, tips can be provided to subject in future work sessions

Week, day, month (etc.) in review in user dashboard

Machine learning will make use of data from subject and collective anonymous data to improve its modulation

Minimally invasive & unobstructive

User has control of modulation

UV Protection

Blue light filtration to minimize strain

Guidance, proactivity, and productivity

Coach them to develop greater emotional resilience and awareness over time

Device prompts you to self-report state of mind and emotions to help validate information inferred from data.

Incentivize use/remove de-incentives

They’re cool…

Software

Mobile iOS / Android companion app

Website

AI / Machine Learning

Wearable software

Who will use?

Nelson: Most unmet need is likely construction industry.

PPE also used:

In labs (chemical, engineering, pharmaceuticals)

Air traffic controller

Medical professionals and researchers: nurse / doctor (possible biohazards, chemical exposure)

Hazardous waste environments

Police on the job: help detect fatigue

Emergency dispatchers

Mining & drilling (oil and gas)

Manufacturing and fabrication

Workers in high-risk environments who need to maintain alertness to stay safe. An error, distraction, or lapse of judgment could cause a serious accident.

Must-haves:

Impact resistance and rated for high temperatures.

[shannondseeger-blog]

Ideation

When we sat down at 11:15, Warren had already started putting together the collaborative drawing document we decided to use, and I had put our question – How might we modulate body and mind to avoid accidents? – at the top of it. We all popped into the hangout session, said our “hey guys”, and then I blinked and an hour had passed. I think my teammates felt the same way: this was a really smooth, really fun part of the process.

We definitely embodied the Brainstorming Teams technique in this process. Nelson got us into the mindset by suggesting we use the principles of an Ishikawa diagram to remind ourselves of the root causes. It was helpful to set these up on the collaborative document as we thought through solutions. Warren’s UX expertise was helpful in creating a framework through the affinity-diagram model. Thinking through the lens of the user first put us into an empathetic as well as inventive mindset when we actually came down to brainstorming solutions. Setting time limits on both of these brainstorming phases was critical – we were all still editing stickies when the timer went off, and I think we could have gone on. We didn’t throw any ideas out, and we continued to add, update, and move stickies in our debriefing sessions afterwards.

Through this process, we determined that our solution must be minimally invasive, both in terms of data collection and storage as well as physically. Our users will be turned off by products that act without their consent, or that cause distractions by being bulky or too talkative, or that share data about their heart rate or brain states with an employer or larger community. Instead, our brainstorming leaned more towards a flat or embedded product that prompts the user to engage with it, helping them to build self-awareness while also improving the efficacy of the program over time through validation of data gathered. We staunchly agreed that if data was made available to a larger group, it would only be done in the aggregate and without any possibility of matching to an individual.

I continue to be grateful for how on-the-same-page we are. The way my schedule worked this week, I had to do the asynchronous material after our meet-up and, in learning about different techniques, I realized how differently this process could have gone. We had set a question that was broad on purpose, but I know retrospectively that we were answering a different question, something that was a little closer to:

How might we use technology to modulate body and mind to avoid accidents?

Since we never voiced this question to each other, it’s kind of extraordinary that we all fell into working on it anyway. In some ways, our brainstorm was more focused because of this and I think that will serve us well when we begin to narrow down to solutions. I suppose I could argue that we limited ourselves by not thinking about low- or no-tech solutions. I thought through some of these on my own when working through the asynch:

Training development (safety),

materials or collateral development (books, pamphlets, audio),

certain kinds of therapies (like mindfulness training and other kinds of self-awareness and self-modulation), or

strategic planning for companies that lower overall stress and promote well-being.

With all that said, I don’t actually feel that we shorted ourselves. I have no regrets on this front and am thrilled with our process this phase and the outcome. I’m looking forward to what’s next.

[shannondseeger-blog]

Group Brainstorming

Team Onspyre (@warren-usc, @well-being-tech and myself) worked virtually on our brainstorming session and made use of Google Drawing to simulate Post-It notes. We began by setting up our “how might we…?” question at the very top of our collaborative document, and then used some of the guidelines of an Ishikawa/Fishbone diagram to remind ourselves of the primary and secondary variables that caused or influenced our problem (in green and red).

Next, we set a timer for ten minutes and each filled out as many blue “stickies” as we could, responding to a prompt that Warren suggested: “As a user, I want to be able to…”. When the timer went off, we walked through our stickies and grouped like ones. These became our goals.

We then set the timer for another ten minutes, and filled out yellow “stickies” with ideas to accomplish those goals. These grouped organically. Warren explained that this is a common UX practice called an affinity diagram.

In our discussion afterward, we made a few more moves of stickies, overlapped a few ideas where applicable, and added other ideas as they perked up in conversation. We ended up with the below:

[shannondseeger-blog]

Definition

Definition. I have been both dreading and anxious to get to this part of the process simply because our topic is so vast and our divergent phase so very divergent. To bring it back to the barest of bones, my mind went immediately to our first thought, which had to do with safety, and came up with this question:

How might we address unavoidable physiological responses or states that contribute to or create avoidable accidents?

Even though it’s vague, and a question, it felt like progress. Rephrased as a problem:

Physiological states such as fatigue or anxiety can make risky situations dangerous.

Speaking of anxiety, when I got to our team meeting, I wasn’t sure if the other members of Onspyre would be up for returning to our original “safety” discussion, since we had dug so far into some fascinating topics, like learning and performance.

It turned out that we had all, independently, come back to the same idea. Our problem statement landed not too far from where I went on my own:

High-risk environments where physical, mental, and emotional states where harm might be done to people or equipment.

@warren-usc, our resident designer, had thought through his definition phase with some amazing visuals. His mind map and illustration are worth checking out. He reminded us of this statement from week 7’s materials and that shaped our conversation:

Define the constraints in which you have to work and specific objectives for addressing the problem.

With this as our guide, we settled into our pretty easy rhythm of Talking it Out. The techniques we ended up using from the asynch were defining Mission Objectives and, organically, finding those Key Words from our prolific research phase. You can see the results of this discussion here.

Independently, I naturally gravitate towards the Problems Within Problems technique, which I used a lot when writing through my Big Questions. It tends to manifest as Questions Beget Questions for me, so it’s not surprising that I went over word count on that particular activity. I think this is a comfort zone for me because it feels more doable to distill big issues into solvable chunks, or at least into actionable queries.

Before my team met, I also went back to our morphological analyses tables and reviewed all of the possibilities we had dreamed up and researched. I also find it helpful to retreat into empathy to remind myself why this is a problem worth solving. As the team member who worked through our potential audience members, it was satisfying to consider the Persona Core poster and realize we worked through this in our own way. There are certain behavioral questions that were easy to answer because of how we hit the problem:

Fast or slow decision maker? Why, how can you tell?

Fast – these are professionals who will rely on training and habits to act quickly in risky situations. The problem arises when a physical state overrides the training. Next question?

Decisions made on facts or emotion?

Honestly, this question may be the crux of the whole problem.

I think it would be useful to work through this poster after or during the Ideation phase, too, when we can be really intentional about our answers.

[shannondseeger-blog]

Conjunction Junction

Hair

My hair is a little bit wild, and it’s kind of straight, and also kind of wavy, and it mostly does it’s own thing and I’m mostly okay with that.

My hair is a little bit wild, but it’s kind of straight, but also kind of wavy, but it mostly does it’s own thing but I’m mostly okay with that.

iPhone

I have an iPhone and I can’t live without it. It’s in a black case and it has a crack down the screen protector because I’m kind of hard on it.

I have an iPhone but I can’t live without it. It’s in a black case but it has a crack down the screen protector because I’m kind of hard on it.

Carpets

Carpets arrived from Philip’s grandfather and they’re old, and well-loved, and the colors have faded. They’re from Turkey and represent memories of travels.

Carpets arrived from Philip’s grandfather but they’re old, but well-loved, but the colors have faded. They’re from Turkey but represent memories of travels.

Slippers

I’ve got my slippers on, and they’re purple, and kind of nubby and soft. They were a present and I used to think of them disdainfully. I wear them when I’m feeling least self-conscious and shabby.

I’ve got my slippers on, but they’re purple, but kind of nubby but soft. They were a present but I used to think of them disdainfully. I wear them when I’m feeling least self-conscious but shabby.

Dinner

Pasta is for dinner and I’ll put tons of garlic in it, and it will have some smoky roasted peppers, and it will be spicy with Calabrian chili paste. We’ll add cheese on top and have broccoli on the side. We will probably have heartburn and it will be worth it.

Pasta is for dinner but I’ll put tons of garlic in it, but it will have some smoky roasted peppers, but it will be spicy with Calabrian chili paste. We’ll add cheese on top but have broccoli on the side. We will probably have heartburn but it will be worth it.

via Gfycat

[shannondseeger-blog]

Problem Definition

Group Discussion with @warren-usc and @well-being-tech

Problem to address: High-risk environments where physical, mental, and emotional states where harm might be done to people or equipment.

We seek to develop a system that can:

Help the operator to identify...

At-risk states of body and mind

Avoidable accidents before they happen

Coach the operator to develop greater emotional resilience and awareness over time:

How to mitigate factors that may make people more accident-prone

Do not rely on training alone.

User feels empowered, not monitored (self-monitoring/ownership)

Constraints (Actual and Team-Imposed):

Limit to high-risk tasks where it is possible to become complacent: piloting a plane, performing surgery, driving a car/truck, EMS emergency dispatch, high-voltage switching, construction/operating large/heavy machinery

Technology must exist or be feasible to create.

Initial product concept should be a minimum viable product (MVP)

Product should be unobstructive or be incorporated/integrated into the environment. Must be safe (can’t introduce a safety hazard)

Necessary mobility of user (as it informs/limits solution)

Time and resources.

Cost and affordability of product/solution.

Our own abilities.

Create a product that is widely adopted by the target demographic. This can be achieved through user research. If a product is an effective solution, but has no adopters, it’s useless.

Objectives identified for current phase:

Create a solution that will be useful/sought out/seamlessly integrated.

Create a solution that provides effective feedback (that is discreet and not distracting).

Team becomes expert in technology used and states being studied/identified.

Reduce costs associated with illness and injury – sick time, worker’s comp, malpractice, and insurance rates.

Objectives for remaining phases:

In the status quo, there are few assistive technologies developed that help improve the user’s focus in such situations. There is room to innovate in this niche. The objective is to develop a wearable for risk aversion when a subject performs a high-risk task. This will ultimately improve public safety and advance the industry in safety technology.

Identify specific wearable devices and sensors that will work holistically in the solution.

Measure: Identify the research put into each device and the depth of thought in the system. Engineering and software expertise can help determine feasibility of solution.

Brainstorm different solutions and identify the best few ideas. Consider factors such as the level of effort to deliver solution, complexity, financial capacity, and project deadlines.

Measure: Gauge the level of effort and depth in each idea. The best ideas will be determined from feedback from the team, the class, and the professor.

Create effective prototypes

Measure: Validate each solution against the initial product requirements. Has all the requirements been met?

Test design solutions and iterate for an effective solution

Measure: Test the solution for design flaws. Iterate on the solution and test again to reduce design flaws to a minimal. Solution can always be approved upon, but a good measurement is to track the marked improvements between the initial solution and the successive iterations.

[shannondseeger-blog]

Analysis

It was our team meeting to discuss our morphological analysis that really shaped this phase for me and set me on my particular path. We discussed the mechanics of the analysis itself and then ended up breaking it out into components to compare. Some components had shapes you could get your hands around, like hardware, and some had no borders at all. I ended up investigating audience, uses, and mindfulness techniques.

In general, I tend toward the “collector” role in information-gathering – I like focus and filtering out – but this has truly been a divergent-thinking phase for me. The Big Questions left me feeling a little bit adrift on a sea of more questions, which is totally fine but not something I’m used to in my day-to-day. I used analysis techniques that I don’t usually get to for work projects, like lateral thinking and creating an idea dump. I started with different populations that might be affected by our problem – which turned out to be everyone – and moved on to situations in which these groups might be seeking a concrete solution, and the web started to grow.

Once you start digging into different states of the brain and body and how they affect human performance, you come across all manner of needs. Nelson and Warren had a great amount of success finding different technology, hardware, and software applications for our problem, which served to open up the problem further (in a good way). Nelson is also plugged into various tradeshows and conferences, and he was able to source material about future and burgeoning tech that we could review. Inspired by this research and also by our class discussion, I began thinking about the problem from the perspective of different personal and professional needs. I also read article after blog after paper about different mindfulness techniques, which confirmed our assumption that different mental states and their effect is really something humans are seeking to understand and even control.

Reading about mindfulness was, ironically, a little bit of an exercise in frustration. I didn’t actually end up using any of it in my morphological analysis because it would have been a true force-fit situation (and maybe I’m not there yet? Something to work on). For example, one method was called the Raisin technique. You consider a raisin, holding it in the palm of your hand, as if you have never seen one before. You observe how it looks, feels, smells. You become so consumed with the raisin that you actually can not think or worry or wonder about anything else. I can see how this is almost a form of meditation: it’s calming, it relaxes inner critics. However, we’re looking at situations where we actually need the individual to maintain focus on the task at hand. Substitute out the raisin for, say, a human heart and the observer for a cardiothoracic surgeon and it becomes difficult to drown out the pressures of time and actual life-and-death nature of the situation.

One technique I would like to try that I haven’t yet is the origin story technique. We’ve come across mentions of human evolution and why we have certain physiological reactions to situations, but I’d like to really understand it. Isn’t it fascinating that the nerves you feel before a date or presentation have some sort of origin in early humans? Why? Do nerves actually make us better performers? Or, take distraction. What neurological incentives occur or exist to distract us when it’s in our best interest to be extra-focused? 

As I mentioned, every question spawns five more, which I think is symptomatic of a good mess. 

[shannondseeger-blog]

Morphological Analysis

We took advantage of the morphological analysis structure to dig deep into specific aspects of our topic. Our process covered three component groupings:

Technology & Form by @well-being-tech

@well-being-tech also made this amazing heat map that corresponded with the above:

Software & Hardware by @warren-usc

Audience & Usage

[shannondseeger-blog]

Acceptance: Picturing Success

One opportunity at this point in the process is that we’ve been flirting with a subject but haven’t totally nailed down our problem statement just yet. Currently, this divergent period of exploration is compelling and that in and of itself feels exciting. We’re really intrigued by our subject matter and an early success would be mastery or at least proficiency on the topics of mindfulness, emotional stress, physical indicators of stress, and the impact of these on safety.

The intersection of these topics is specific but broadly applicable, and I’ll feel successful when I know that we’ve established a solution that can work for people in all walks of life. It’s gratifying to know that you have the potential to make someone’s life better or, at least, more safe. It’s even more gratifying when that solution has the potential to make broader impact.

As we move into outcomes, I think that we have naturally been envisioning some sort of product or at least a product design, and we all want it to be something that could feasibly be built and not just an abstraction, so that would certainly be an indicator of success to me! I think that this would be the best case scenario for me. I haven’t really completed a project like this before and adding some new skills or starting a portfolio would be a fabulous outcome for me. I would have allowed myself to absorb new qualities that could guide my life in as-yet mysterious, wonderful ways.

I don’t expect any monetary gain from this and I actually really like that I can move revenue generation from “need to accomplish” to “nice to accomplish”. The pressure isn’t off, it can just be better focused. Instead, the motivating factor is more about our team taking ownership and creating something together, and seeing it at the end as this amazing thing we did.

At the end of this process, I would love to feel much like I did at the residential: tired, relieved, proud, accomplished, and grateful for the journey.

[shannondseeger-blog]

Contingency Management

Understand your limits. what are your capabilities and the collective capabilities of your team?

@well-being-tech: We have limited time (in terms of calendar days for each stage of the project and in terms of other commitments) and other resources. I think 10 hours (up to 20 hours for extra important steps) is the most I can dedicate to the project per week, since I am already working 60 hours.

@shannondseeger: We all have busy schedules, so there may be challenges with aligning them. Our backgrounds are disparate, which is beneficial in terms of diversity of thought, but we will also have to communicate conscientiously.

@warren-usc: My profession is user experience design, which means I know how to conduct user research and apply it to a design solution. I also have experience with project management and I’ve taken a project management course. On the job, I make use of PM tools like Jira or PivotalTracker to track progress.

Team Onspyre: We have a diverse set of skills, network, and resources including business (non-profit fundraising, business intelligence, relationship management), design (UX, branding), technology (computer science, utility operations, reliability analysis), networks (e.g. U Maryland, U of Florida, UC Irvine).

Rules of Engagement (i.e. Team Norms)

Always make sure we are notified via text and agree upon a date / time prior to scheduling a meeting

Be responsive

Disagree without being disagreeable: Keep everyone informed if there is a disagreement and discuss it with the team

Make sure everyone is participating and sharing (practice active listening)

Mutual commitment to a high standard of quality and integrity

During divergent process steps, work horizontally in all aspects; During convergent stages, integrate feedback from all parties respectfully, but allow each point person to lead in the area they have the most experience in order to prevent getting stuck

Seek to enjoy the process and have fun

Establish reasonable and feasible goals and standards. What are your and your team’s intentions and are they in line with your abilities. Where does your team have gaps and how will you mitigate that?

@well-being-tech: I think the challenge will be to be fearless with our imagination in the start, but then be disciplined to limit the scope to a realistic and achievable goal for the project that fits within the course. From our discussions, my team’s intention is to tap into our collective experience and resources, to learn from each other and from this creative problem solving exercise, and

@shannondseeger: I certainly have knowledge gaps when it comes to some of the areas we’re about to dig into. I want to be careful to manage the scope and timeline of the project while remaining true to the exploratory, creative spirit of it.

@warren-usc: Our team intends to develop a solution that is innovative and new. This is in line with my capabilities in UX, where we conduct research and prototype a solution.

Team Onspyre:

Create a general product scope and requirements

Determine if intended solution is feasible and still exciting after going through process

Commit to/explore, learn and enjoy the process

Potential gaps: industrial design, knowledge gaps relating to business and resources, physical distance (needing to communicate digitally for the most part)

Be strict and consistent. Do not promise what you cannot deliver. Talk with your team on how to stay within scope and meet and exceed expectations within your collective means.

@warren-usc: One of the keys to agile development is to avoid scope creep and stick to the original plan. This includes avoiding nice-to-have features and focusing on a minimum viable product with the core features. Once the initial concept has been developed and we have the resource capacity, we can decide on enhancing the product and adding additional features.

@shannondseeger: Though I fully believe in the leader-of-the-moment (whoever is most expert for that portion of discussion), it will be useful to have roles, guidelines, and scope that we can help each other adhere to.

@well-being-tech: I find that having a written scope of work and set of expectations with frequent check-ins is important. Assigning a project manager and domain leads will be helpful to keep us all on track and work through sticky points.

Team Onspyre: Have a written set of goals and a plan to achieve them and frequent group check-ins to make sure we are sticking to the plan (minimally viable/lovable product)

Reward yourself. What incentives do you and your team value when you meet your goals and, conversely, what is agreed upon and accepted “consequences” for you or your team members not contributing or behaving poorly?

@warren-usc: We are intrinsically driven to help the world with a new tool. By aiding the community, we feel we are making a change and it’s a rewarding experience in of itself.

@shannondseeger: I began this program to learn from projects, professors, and peers. The process itself will be a reward, and our goal is to create something helpful to others, which is always rewarding. If we hold each other and ourselves to a high standard, we shouldn’t have to deal with the consequences of poor behavior. Strong and consistent communication will help as well.

@well-being-tech: I am looking forward to sharpening my skills in the innovation and startup process, learning with expert feedback and insights from my colleagues with other domain expertise. I am investing precious resources into this experience, and want to get the most out of it; I am genuinely passionate about every aspect of our collective prompt; there is an outside chance that the project could inspire a rewarding collaboration beyond the course work. I certainly would not like to disappoint myself, my peers and mentors.

Team Onspyre:  We are intrinsically motivated to go through the process as a rewarding experience of growth and development; the potential reward of obtaining a better understanding of the process and the subject matter; making a real contribution to improve safety and well-being; get the most out of the course experience; no one wants to feel disappointed with themselves, miss out on the opportunity or be perceived in a negative light by peers and mentors due to lack of commitment, progress or conflict.

[shannondseeger-blog]

What’s in it for me?

Exposure: Warren and Nelson work in realms I know almost nothing about, and I’m excited to learn about their areas of expertise.

Portfolio: I don’t have one! At least, I don’t have one related to design, products, or business explorations. This project, coupled with the residential, could help me build one.

Curiosity-feeding: Our subject brainstorm went in some cool directions - I’m looking forward to the research phase on mindfulness and biological indicators of stress.

Skill strengthening: I’m looking forward to the opportunity to hone some project-management and team-working skills.

The process: I joined this program to open up my borders a little bit, and I consider this project one of the major milestones on that journey.