1. Cultural Probes

Cultural Probes, also often called diary study, are a research method, that helps to understand the everyday challenges, goals and needs of users at the beginning of a design process, while simultaneously being a technique, that inspires ideas in the process.

The probes are usually small packages, that include tasks, which are given to the participants to allow them to document and reflect on certain aspects of their lives over a longer period of time.

What makes this specific method unique is that it captures insights from the user’s perspective, which therefore makes it easy to understand their thoughts and values better, while stimulating the designer’s imaginations.

We as designers need to be able to empathize and understand the users, in order to provide a service, which is why a cultural probe is a great starting point for a design process. It enables a deeper relationship with the users and allows us to integrate the results of the probes optimally into our further work, which is in fact our ideation workshop.

In the following, we are going to briefly present the three different cultural probes, that were created prior to our ideation workshop.

1.1. Where is the pain?

This cultural probe was put together by Vivien Serve and Enrico Reinhardt, who created it, in order to identify common emotional pain points of the user’s process of finding their professional identity.

To clarify, associative images depict situations that trigger positive and negative emotions. The spontaneous emotions and thoughts will be recorded, and the evaluation will focus on the negative emotions as well as the gained insights by quality and quantity.

The participants are handed an image collection depicting general situations. These potentially trigger emotions connected to the user's experience.

In the first step, the participants are asked to draw emojis on yellow round stickers. They then need to assign these feelings to a picture and put them on an image collage. In the next step, they have to write a personal thought on another sticker set.

The coming PDF presents the cultural probe again in detail.

1.2 How might we get rid of biased career choices?

The following cultural probe was organized by Louis Ripp and Tom Sommermann, who had the aim to explore participants associations and emotions about specific work environments, work utensils and occupations, and their evaluation of different aspects of occupation via specific tasks.

The tasks have the intention to gain insights into participants’ associations and emotions. Participants are first asked to select a picture showing their preferred work environment and to cut out an area that attracts their attention the most. They are then asked to write down their associations and reasons for choosing the area.

Finally, the participants are to note down personal associations and give reasons for them. A reflection question should clarify to what extent prejudices have influenced the evaluation. The pictures of different work environments should provide an overview of possible work scenarios.

1.3. Discovering the Unspoken

This cultural probe was conducted by Maria Cuervo, Kim Tuyen Truong and Le Na Nguyen Thi and is supposed to identify communication problems or opportunities for a more collaborative process between parents and their children. 

In order to find a solution to this communication issue, it's essential to figure out the intricate feelings of the parents and the child. 

To achieve that, a form of diary, which included a decision log, postcards and two sheets of sketch paper, was created to detect the thoughts of each person as well as to make the participants reflect on their own journey.

The further pictures include the manual of the cultural probes and the different task sheets, that were given to the participants, while the PDF also includes the different received answers.

Based on the results we created more HMW Questions and categorised the answers onto sticker notes.

The most common aspects the participants wrote about were their limitations, opprtunities, emotions and of course their parents. Some people were more detailed with their answers and some were more vague.

For future improvements that could have been done on this probe, some people had difficulty understanding the child/parent aspect and couldn't give the parents their corresponding part of the cultural probe as they don't live with them at the moment. Furthermore the use of mixed digital and physical parts caused people to only use the physical ones and not use the digital ones. If we re-used this cultural probe it would have to be refocused taking into better consideration of who was going to complete it. However the freestyle nature of our probe still gave us interesting results and information.

2. Merging four HMW questions into one

how did we merge it? 

what was our process here?

After evaluating our individual cultural probes, each team had developed one to four how might we questions. We presented and discussed our how might we questions in the big group. We evaluated which aspects were most important to us and each broad forward key points we wanted to include.

From there we agreed on the most interesting parts of each group and formulated a how might we questions that included these aspects. This was really hard since we were a group of seven people and every voice had equal value. We managed to land on a question though, which everyone was happy with.

🔥 Final HMW Question

How might we make the inner circle more aware of their stereotypes
towards career paths in order to help them empathize with people
choosing a career path?

3. Ideation Workshop - Planning

To decide how we were going to approach the Ideation Workshop, first we did a zoom meeting and discussed the conclusions each of us made from our own separate cultural probes. After discussing our discoveries and which parts interested u, we agreed on a How might we question to focus for the whole workshop:

How might we make the inner circle more aware of their stereotypes towards career paths in order to help them empathize with people choosing a career path?

We distributed the parts of the workshop:

1. Intro- Louis

2. Discover - Vivien & Enrico

3. Define - Tom

4. Break - Vivien

5. Develop - Maria

6. Deliver - Louis

7. Exit - Enrico

That each stage had a different moderator was a chance for each of us to experience how to moderate the workshop. Throughout the whole planning stage we also did some offline meetings so everybody was updated on the others parts and to make a cohesive workshop, as well as help anybody that needed it.

As our HMW question was related to the inner circle we talked to some parents to see if they could come, as they could provide essential input and another perspective. This meant that we had to plan the workshop all in both German and English simultaneously as some participants could only speak one language or the other.

Time management was also crucial to plan well, so that the workshop didn’t last longer than what was previously established, this caused us to have to draw back some of our ideas.

Apart from each preparing their respective parts, we also had to organize all the materials needed for the workshop to run smoothly. This required the printing of the idea napkins as well as ideation cards and bringing materials such as pencils, sticky notes, pens etc. Having in mind we had external visitors in our workshop, creating a welcoming and cozy atmosphere was a priority so we also included decorations to the room as well as having background music. We also made rules that we printed to stick to the walls to make sure everyone was on the same page and to slowly introduce the participants to the ideation workshop. As the workshop would be 2h long and started early, providing food and arranging hot beverages for everybody was important. All the food and decorations helped create the atmosphere we wanted to achieve.

4. Ideation Workshop - Execution

The final ideation workshop consists of four main parts: Discover, Define, Develop, Deliver accompanied by an Intro and and Exit. (HIER NOCH QUELLE EINFÜGEN).

In the spirit of teamwork, we worked out the structure together, timeboxed each section and then assigned theresponsible persons. In the following, we will roughly outline the contents of the phases. For more detailed information, please have a look at the process presentation.

1st INTRO, 10 mins, responsible: Louis Ripp

The intro was started with a short welcome, the introduction of the workshop rules and our general policy, which we call „Yes, and …“. This was followed by a collaborative warm-up, the speed date walk. Here the participants had to find a partner three times for 45 seconds and had time to talk about your former dream job. Finally, the HMW question was presented and it was announced that we will try to develop possible solutions together.

2nd DISCOVER, 20 mins, responsible: Vivien Serve, Enrico Reinhardt

The aim of the Discovery phase s to collect as many ideas as possible on how we can overcome stereotypes of the inner circle. For this purpose, we divided this phase into three sections.

1. Problem framing „walk of shame“ (5 mins): first, all participants, especially the external ones, should understand the problem. For this purpose, we collected stereotypes about different occupational groups in surveys among our friends and family. We also printed quotes from our collected cultural probes on cards. On a wall we presented the stereotypes and fictitious characters, as well as the quote cards. In 3 minutes, all participants had time to create a fictitious role, which could later be presented to the group. This method was invented by ourselves.

2. Brainstorming 3-Bad/3-Good (10 mins): in order to collect as many ideas as possible, we distributed folded sheets of paper and organised a self-invented brainstorming method based on negative brainstorming and Crazy-8. For this, the participants had one minute each to write down an idea that worsens the problem. The sheet was then passed to the neighbour on the left, who had to unfold it and also write down a negative idea. After 3 rounds, the sheet was unfolded and passed on for the last time. The next person was asked to come up with 3 good ideas based on the existing 3 bad ideas. It was left up to the next person to decide whether to reverse the ideas or find inspiration elsewhere.

3. Refinement (5 min): Finally everyone had time left to refine their ideas and write them down on sticky notes inn one ore two clear sentences

3rd DEFINE, 15 mins, responsible: Tom Sommermann

The third phase aimed to present the conglomerate of ideas to everyone and to agree on the most promising ones. This was done in the following way: we prepared a matrix on the wall, assigning impact and effort to the axes. All participants had to present their ideas one after the other and place them in the matrix. Meanwhile, we left space for focused discussions. Finally, we chose the ideas that had high impact and low effort and those that we as a group considered particularly important. In the end, we agreed on 4 ideas.

Insertion BREAK, 10 mins, responsible: Vivien Serve

Now it was time for a break, where the participants could exchange ideas with each other over coffee, mandarins and Baumkuchen. In the meantime, we divided the teams for the next phase. To start working fresh again, we ended the break with a motivational rocket.   

4th DEVELOP, 30 mins, responsible: Maria Cuervo

The participants were divided into groups and each team was assigned one of the ideas. Now they were asked to discuss, elaborate and record them. We used the idea napkin method as a guide. Each team was given a layouted A2 sheet on which they had to write down different aspects of the idea, such as slogan, target group, name, functionality, financing and visual appearance.

5th DELIVER, 30 mins, responsible: Louis Ripp

Every team gave a 3 min pitch about their idea which we filmed. After every presentation we had a short open phase for asking questions. And after all presentations we planned an open discussion and feedback round.

6th Exit, 5 mins, responsible: Enrico Reinhardt

Once again, a final thank you to all participants and collective end to the workshop

The challenge for us in this phase was above all the collaborative and at the same time asynchronous work. In addition, the workshop had to be held bilingually in English and German due to the external participants.

Below you can see our presentation that accompanied the workshop, as well as impressions from the workshop.

5. Outcome

After collecting, conceptualizing, and critiquing ideas in the workshop, we began developing prototypes in small groups. Here is a brief summary of what we came up with:

Internist

In the ideation workshop, Internist was initially developed as a state-enforced and funded platform to integrate students directly into the job market. The service is especially useful for unenthusiastic graduates who do not have a clear career path. Schools would work with companies to organize paid internships for graduates to accumulate work experience, earn their first paycheck, and gain perspective. As it is quite challenging to implement a state-funded and supported project like this, the idea was further developed. Internist is now a two-sided platform that connects students with local companies for internship opportunities, taking into account their individual skills and expectations with the power of AI.

For more information, you can read the documentation by Vivien and Enrico here.

Job Quartet

Job Quartett is a physical card game that features job cards with estimated statistics. Players can challenge each other by comparing the statistics to win each other's cards. The goal is to learn about new jobs in a fun way. By comparing the jobs and starting discussions about the statistics, players can develop their interest in different professions. They can then learn more about each profession by scanning a QR code on the back of the card. The game can be distributed by schools, the job center or elsewhere. For funding, so called „Golden Cards“ will be implemented, sponsored by companies with vacancies.

The documentation by Maria and Lena can be read on the pdf above.

Eltern Job Talk

Many parents and legal guardians can be quite reserved about certain jobs, which can negatively impact their child's career choices. To address this issue, Eltern Job Talk was created to eliminate harmful stereotypes. The platform connects users with parents from different professions, who can provide firsthand information and experience to dispel misconceptions. Users can communicate via personal chats and calls, and their questions and information can be published in a public forum, creating an accurate knowledge database.
The initial idea was to create an exchange primarily for parents, but the platform provides valuable information for anyone with an interest. As communication is mutual, funding is only required for the development and maintenance of the platform, which is provided by personalized ads and job offers in the public forums.

The documentation by Tuyen and Tom is available here.

Career Quest

Planned as a versatile platform, Career Quest was developed as a career discovery board game. Initially, during the ideation workshop, the project was conceived as a program that would help parents and guardians support their children on their career path. With information available online as well as on brochures, parents could seek advice. Psychological coaching and pedagogic workshops were also planned. After receiving initial feedback, the idea was redesigned into a board game. The game features information about the most current jobs and guides children and their guardians through the labyrinth of modern career paths. It can be extended via an app. By gamifying the idea, parents and their children can explore careers together, circumvent harmful stereotypes, and have a lot of fun.

Open the Documentation of „CareerQuest”

6. Reflection

We worked well as a team, although some people took on more effort than others. In the decision making process we quickly and fairly came to a common ground. In the preparation and the execution of the workshop almost everyone from the group took on a part. We developed slides and concepts, which we then executed in the workshop in the following week.

It was pretty hasty developing a workshop within a week, looking back we are proud to have managed it as well as we have. Especially making the workshop something special and involving actual stakeholders, like parents, was really challenging to accomplish.

The outcome of the workshop could have been better sharpened. We weren't as successful gathering the ideas that could later become an actual product. In a next iteration of this kind of workshop, we would need to work on the way we make sure there is a significant and useful output. In general we feel a workshop can be a powerful tool in the co-creative process, that can help bring real innovation to the market.