We Take a Human-Center Approach to Design

We aim for solving problems through focusing on our user’s needs, pain points, and desired outcomes. We follow a process that prioritizes our user over our own goals and follow Human-Centered Design principles to guide our thinking. We use qualitative research methods to determine our design principles and welcome critical feedback at all phases of design.

Our Process

 

To answer our research questions, we developed a four-phase research plan that included qualitative inquiry, findings and analysis, design and iteration, and evaluation stages. Design and evaluation stations often repeated as we moved further into the project. We gathered, transcribed, and analyzed the data we collected using qualitative research methods prior to designing a solution to meet our research study goals.

We Asked

 

  1. How do community members prefer to discuss and share local assets in a way that is culturally appropriate?
  2. How might we rethink asset mapping as an opportunity to create a community-shared artifact?
  3. What would a new interactive asset-mapping tool require in order to drive community building?
Design Process Image

Stage 1: Research

 

Our initial research included a thorough literature review on Asset-based Community Design, Asset Mapping, Participatory Design, and GIS for communities.

We conducted six initial interviews to understand our user’s current process for mapping community assets.

We looked at over 10 competitors in the commercial and non-profit markets to identify trends in features. 

Stage 2: Analysis

 

We gathered insights from our interviews, second research review, and competitive analysis and found that an asset mapping tool should:

  1. Support ongoing collaboration
  2. Support trust-building between organizations and the community
  3. Should support building community relationships
  4. Support the development of a shared language
  5. Drive community conversation
  6. Not rely on technology

Stage 2: Analysis

 

We gathered insights from our interviews, second research review, and competitive analysis and found that an asset mapping tool should:

  1. Support ongoing collaboration
  2. Support trust-building between organizations and the community
  3. Should support building community relationships
  4. Support the development of a shared language
  5. Drive community conversation
  6. Not rely on technology

We found that a tool that supports these findings does not already exist 

initial_toolkit_prototype

Stage 3: Design

 

Our designed solution was based off the following principles, which were uncovered during analysis:

  1. Management and ownership of assets are important and should be designed with equity in mind
  2. Asset mapping is used as a tool to deepen community relationships and deepen community conversations
  3. Asset mapping processes must include language for diverse communities
  4. Asset mapping should be designed for communities with varying technological access and skills

We opted for a physical solution due to varying access to technological resources

Stage 4: Evaluation

 

During our evaluation stage, we evaluated each section of the toolkit through exploratory online-studies to gather assessment about the effectiveness of the toolkit. Evaluations were held virtually due to COVID-19 restrictions. We conducted 11 online evaluations with five community based-organization leaders and six faculty members of the Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD) Institute at DePaul University.

We later integrated this feedback into the design of our toolkit.

Stage 4: Evaluation

 

During our evaluation stage, we evaluated each section of the toolkit through exploratory online-studies to gather assessment about the effectiveness of the toolkit. Evaluations were held virtually due to COVID-19 restrictions. We conducted 11 online evaluations with five community based-organization leaders and six faculty members of the Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD) Institute at DePaul University.

We later integrated this feedback into the design of our toolkit.

Examples of Evaluation Feedback

        

A Note About COVID-19

 

Before the pandemic changed how we live, work, and engage with each other, our design team had planned on conducting in-person evaluations with community leaders in Chicago. Due to social distancing and concerns for our safety and the safety of Chicago’s communities, we opted to conduct evaluations online through virtual gathering platforms. This allowed us to receive critical feedback, however, in the future we hope to conduct in-person evaluation as originally planned.

 

Future Work

 

In future design iterations, we plan to incorporate the valuable feedback we received from community organization leaders that interacted with the toolkit. We received critical advice on language and was to make the toolkit more inclusive to meet the diverse needs of Chicago’s communities. Though we set out to design a digital asset mapping tool, our design team felt it was important that the design is accessible to all communities, regardless of their technological skills or access. We are grateful that our community partners supported this decision and continued to support our work.

Design Process – Technology for Social Good

Design Process