Day 1: Define the Challenge & Produce Solutions
Mapping the long-term didactical objective on an achievable time frame and with all necessary didactical requirements can sound a bit scary. The key of the map-phase in this design sprint is not to create a detailed, perfect timeline or stakeholder flow that takes hours or days to get right. Simplicity is king in this stage. So hold your horses: getting the details right will be addressed at the end of this day and during day 2. Within an hour, we can map a rough version of a teaching activity from start to finish (: reaching the objective). Eventually the voted HMWs (How-Might-Wes) can find their place on the map and the lunch break starts with a clear focal point in mind.
This is an example of what a map can look like if the design sprint was applied to a regular business instead of an academic course. The map represents the road towards the business’ (in this case FOOD2YOU) long-term goal to get customers to return to their shop and make new orders. FOOD2YOU delivers food to your doorstep. In this map the customer is the soul actor that discovers the food delivery service via commercials or friends, visits the FOOD2YOU website or app and uses the provided steps to order food to, eventually, order some more. The map is not final and can be changed during any phase of the design sprint. It doesn’t contain any specific details or extensive brainwork either. Keep it simple and the exercise won’t take longer than 45 minutes.
Analogously to the example above, the map represents all different steps taken by each actor (student, teacher, stakeholders in general) through the learning activity to get to the final objective. In order to apply the same mentality to the co-creation learning activity as to this business example, some crucial elements need to be added though. These questions relating to effective study materials need to be answered with keywords next to the map:
What Embedded Support Device should we focus on the most to pursue the long-term objective? In other words: where will the co-creation take place? (Orienting, Assimilation or Testing)
Do we aim for a formative or summative approach?
If applicable: how much feedback / how many assessments will we embed? (The team can always come back to questions like these and change them.)
EXAMPLE Answers on guiding questions
Example 1: objective = students provide a summary for each course chapter co-creation takes place in / as an assimilation support device (side info: via the lightning demos the solution sketch can lead to a detailed exercise in which students create short videos TO VISUALISE the summaries of a certain amount of chapters
Start at the end by writing the long term objective / goal defined in the previous exercise to the right. Add the actors or stakeholders to the left. The next 45 minutes will be a guided spitballing-session and team members can shout what they believe to be crucial for the map. Start with ‘instruction‘, the most evident part of the map. Then make your way through the rest of the map by filling the gaps for each of the actors. Not all input should be written down since changes can be made during the rest of the design sprint. It is up to the facilitator to select the words and write them in place. This is what the clean slate should look like:
Starting with the path for one actor / stakeholder is easiest. Doing this for the most evident stakeholder can get the ball rolling for the rest of the map. For example:
Once one stakeholder is mapped out, the other gaps can be filled. In this example, the ‘colleague teacher’ and the ‘professional’ join a similar path to the student’s:
It would be too ambitious to work out the entire map in just a single design sprint. The next step is called ‘Targeting the Map’ and this will assure a clear focal point to demarcate the specifics of what needs to be addressed during the rest of the sprint.
Take the post-it-notes of the voted HWMs (How-We-Mights) and place them on the most corresponding place of the map. After this, the team has to choose a focal point on the map by adding a clear, coloured boundary encircling the words and HWMs chosen. Again, the decider has the final say about defining the scope of the focal point.
By selecting a specific target, it is more guaranteed to have a successful output at the end of the sprint. It is, however, very important to state that other parts of the map mustn’t be ignored. The target forms the most important element and the next steps of the design sprint should always take into account what happens before and after. For the CoCOS-training week the target must include the part(s) that will be drafted in the tool of choice.