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.
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.
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.
We gathered insights from our interviews, second research review, and competitive analysis and found that an asset mapping tool should:
We gathered insights from our interviews, second research review, and competitive analysis and found that an asset mapping tool should:
Our designed solution was based off the following principles, which were uncovered during analysis:
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.
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.
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.
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.