Understanding Design Thinking/ Applying the Design Thinking Process

PJM 6620 - Week 1-2: Understanding Design Thinking/ Applying the Design Thinking Process –

Individual Assignment-Due Week 2

Overview and Rationale

In order to demonstrate proficiency with the content in this course we will complete a number of different assignments to validate your learning – and allow you to implement relevant practices a real-world setting.

Course Learning Outcomes

• Apply design thinking to analyze customer needs to ensure the solution meets that need • Engage journey mapping to understand the customer journey and its pain points in order to focus on the problem or

opportunity • Implement data visualization techniques to unlock stakeholder expectations • Invent potential solutions through the analysis provided by design thinking, journey mapping and data visualization

techniques Weeks 1 – 2 Learning Objectives:

• Integrate design thinking (micro and macro) processes into Business Analysis work • Distinguish problem from solution spaces • Create a “good” problem statement to guide effective solutioning • Discover user needs and understanding through personal creation and needfinding • Determine the Point of View for the solution • Utilize design thinking tools for idea generation • Apply tools to select promising solution options • Create and test a low fidelity prototype against stakeholder needs

Essential Components This individual assignment provides you the opportunity to apply design thinking to your career search. For this assignment, you will work to create key design thinking deliverables – you are the customer and the focus is on your career journey. You may choose any aspect of that – examples include finding your post-MS in PJM job, landing a co-op or being hired for an internship.

Your Week 1-2 deliverables include:

• User Profile Canvas/ Persona (Pains, Gains, and Jobs-to-be-done) from your perspective.

• Submit a strong problem statement.

• Find a job posting:

o Complete an empathy map of that employer.

o Develop a persona of the ideal candidate for this job posting.

• Review your current Resume and conduct a SCAMPER analysis to change your resume to better meet the needs of this employer (Page 96 – The Design Thinking Playbook).

This assignment is due at the end of Week 2. An Assignment Link and Turnitin Link for submission is included in Week 1.

Assignment Rubric

Category Above Standard Meets Standards Approaching Standards Below Standards Not

Evident Assignment requirements (70%)

Goes well above the requirements of the assignment. Provides new information, tools, and/or techniques

Goes above the minimum requirements of the assignment

Meets minimum assignment requirements

Meets some assignment requirements

Does not meet the requirements of the assignment.

Critical Thinking (15%)

Professional insights into depth and breadth of assignment - goes WELL beyond assignment requirements to explore risks and/or relevant new techniques.

Comprehensive explanation of the issue; exploration of expert viewpoints and use of evidence to inform interpretation and analysis; thorough evaluation of the context (historical, ethical, cultural, environmental or circumstantial settings), and self and others’ assumptions and perspectives when stating a position; well- informed conclusions based on methodically prioritized evidence and perspectives.

Includes an explanation of the issue; exploration of expert viewpoints and use of evidence to inform interpretation and analysis; includes an evaluation of the context (historical, ethical, cultural, environmental or circumstantial settings), and self and others’ assumptions and perspectives when stating a position; conclusions are based on methodically prioritized evidence and perspectives.

Includes a general explanation of the issue but is vague or is not clearly linked to the identified risks; includes some exploration of expert viewpoints and use of evidence to inform interpretation and analysis; includes a general evaluation of the context (historical, ethical, cultural, environmental or circumstantial settings), and self and others’ assumptions and perspectives when stating a position, but lack specificity; conclusions are based

Does not explain the issue; does not explore expert viewpoints or use evidence to inform interpretation and analysis; does not provide an evaluation of the context (historical, ethical, cultural, environmental or circumstantial settings), and self and others’ assumptions and perspectives when stating a position; conclusions are not based on prioritized evidence and perspectives.

on prioritized evidence and perspectives.

Communication (10%) (includes grammar and clarity)

Goes well beyond assignment requirements to communicate information in a precise, insightful and professional manner.

Assignment is well organized, and the format can be followed. It is evident to reader what is contained in each section of the report. High quality grammar. No misspellings.

Assignment is organized, and the format can be followed. It is evident to reader what is contained in each section of the report. High quality grammar. No misspellings.

Assignment is well organized, and the format can be followed. It is evident to reader what is contained in each section of the report. Good quality grammar. Minor misspellings.

Assignment is not organized. It is not evident to reader what is contained in each section of report. Low quality grammar, misspellings.

Formatting (5%)

NOTE: Gross failure to provide PROPER citations and references – particularly with regard to direct quotes – will result in sanctions as outlined in the academic honesty policy

Virtually no errors in formatting, citations, or references.

Rare errors in formatting, citations, or references.

Some errors in formatting, citations, or references.

Multiple errors in formatting, citations, or references.

Does not submit assignment materials in APA 6 format.