Designing with People
Conducting a Co-design Workshop
Project Overview
Our goal was to use co-design methods as a mechanism to engage users and stakeholders to dive deeper into their knowledge. We were tasked to plan and execute activities that could be conducted with different levels and types of stakeholders.
Design scope we focused on
There are not enough stimulating creative spaces on Purdue University's campus for students to go to for studying/working
This focus had a very interior design approach, as we were advocating for students to have creative workspaces.
Planning
Methods Used to Create Activities
-
Brainstorming
-
Universal Methods of Design by Bruce Hanington and Bella Martin
-
Research on Google's Officespace
-
Comparative analysis
We also did some comparative research on other creative spaces and how companies are trying to deviate from the classic “office cubicle” design. Google’s headquarters was a major inspiration for us as the spaces were designed for collaboration and comfortability, but also uniqueness. It was interesting to note how Google was going against normal standards for workspaces by adding features such as fake grass and other elements.
Conducting the Co-design
Team Roles​
-
Disguised participant
-
Notetaker/ Videographer
-
Facilitators​​
​
We began our co-design with a brief overview of our problem space to give our participants some context. We didn’t want to give too much away, because we didn’t want to prime them. We had to be careful in the way we explained to them why they were there. In total, we had 14 participants, 2 of which were interior designers that we had reached out to. The co-design lasted 60 minutes.
Ice Breaker​​: A-Z Storytelling
Goal: To get creative juices flowing and get everyone comfortable sharing ideas
As an icebreaker, we did an activity where the facilitators start off the story and each participant adds a sentence to it. But, the catch is that each sentence must start with the next consecutive letter of the alphabet. So the first person started with A, then the next person went with B, and so on.
Activity #1: Room Mood Board
Goal: To get people comfortable with sharing their opinions (doing it on sticky notes rather than verbal at first)
​
For this activity, asked participants to act like they were meeting friends to work on a project. We showed different spaces and had them tell us what words describe the space. Things like: how it would make you feel, what the environment would be like, how long you would spend there, and if you would come back to this space.
​
Examples of rooms we showed participants
​We used 3 different colors of sticky notes to do this. Qualities about the room that would make you excited to study there went on green, qualities that make the room feel uninviting on yellow, and any other adjectives or comments on pink.
We chose this activity because we wanted to gather initial opinions on different rooms to know what aspects make a room feel certain ways.​
Activity #2: Design Roundtable
Goal: Bring forward ideas from each group, engage in cross-pollination of group members, and inspire design goals through collaboration
We challenged our participants to be creative by using the characteristics they wrote about their ideal workspace from activity 1 to physically design that space with provided tool kits. These tool kits encapsulated craft items like pipe cleaners, tape, popsicle sticks, etc.
​
We hoped to come away from this activity with the general layout and any abstract ideas designed by the participants.
All three groups created very different rooms and even wanted extra time to put finishing touches on their creations. Most rooms involved a way to collaborate, which was interesting.
Activity #3: From your Perspective
Goal: Put the participants in the users’ shoes and have them share stories related to creations they have made
For our last activity, we wanted to incorporate the creations made in the previous activity. We also wanted to encourage the participants to empathize as if they were the user - to do this, we planned to give the participants a scenario that worked within our problem frame. Then, we would ask them to pick an aspect of their created workspace that fit their own personal ideal workspace. We wanted to gain perspective on what emotions or feelings might be evoked from certain objects.
​
Takeaways
Activity 1
-
Too much bright light is perceived as uninviting
-
Rooms that are close to the typical “classroom” are undesired
-
Rooms with more “fun” aspects can be distracting in terms of getting work done and were described as “Too focused on fun, not work.”
-
Accessibility is a concern. Will these rooms hold up to wear and tear?
Activity 2
-
Ideal workspaces provide a welcoming environment
-
Many participants chose sticky notes that said “simple”
-
A collaborative or group-work space is also considered to be ideal
Activity 3
-
Incorporating many opinions into one design can be tricky
-
Collaboration between people was prioritized
The most important impact of this co-design was to help our team re-scope, after finding out a deeper problem. Many insights from participants weren't so focused on the actual (interior) design of a workspace, but the functionality. This idea transpired our design thinking further in an extended project that you can view here.
Find Me Elsewhere
