Team D Project 4 Post Mortem
Not everythingabout project 4 was bad. In terms of work, we had a strong core, our sketches were neat and clear, and the personas were thorough. We had a good start as we narrowed down the CHI problem using lenses and figured out our audience and the context. This process not only made our design process simpler but also made us focus on one specific user group and provide solution for them rather than giving a general solution. The core and the mantra kept us focused and helped us work in one direction. We as a team came up with many concepts and detailed sketches. Also the way we organized our research and insights when presenting was appreciated.
However, our group had a lot of problems as well, mostly dealing with team dynamics. The majority of our insights moving forward into Project 5 came from our discussion of these issues:
Accountability and Commitment
The number one problem our group encountered was that not all of us were equally committed to the work we were doing. At the beginning of Project 4 we said we wanted to submit our project to Chi, but we did not keep up a level of work that was consistent with this endeavor. Several times when we delegated tasks, the work we got back was mediocre at best because we simply had not spent enough time working on it. As a result, we also felt that we had to keep each other more accountable for the work we were supposed to do.
More Structure and Organization
Our team also struggled with structure of out meetings. We began very well by coming up with agendas and time lines, but as the project progressed, that phased out to simply meeting without too many clear goals. Our team also slacked on clear communication as there was no specific set way for us to communicate. It was only a combination of e-mails, texts, and calls as to what worked for that time.
Better Communication
Another huge setback for us however was the lack of how honest we were with each other. If something was bothering us, we failed as a group to speak up and mention that we thought things should be otherwise. Additionally, we weren’t always on the same page with respect to the direction of the project and what tasks we were supposed to do. As a result, we wasted a lot of time and effort working on concepts and sketches that we ultimately abandoned because they weren’t within the scope of our project.
More Primary Research!
Our mentor Marie had mentioned to us several times the need for primary research and even went so far as to suggest people we could talk to and methods we could use for gathering data. However, we ultimately didn’t do any face-to-face interviews at all, and the one survey we sent out didn’t give us good results because we half-assed it. So moving forward, we decided it was imperative to interview more people and really get a feel for the needs of our user group before designing.
