The next leg on our 18 month journey of collaboration and innovation was this past weekend's Design Summit. Over the course of a Friday and Saturday, our 11 school teams came together for the second time to share their learnings, provide feedback to one another, refine their POVs, brainstorm, and test some initial protoypes. Of course, the best laid plans are the ones that are flexible: Many thanks to everyone and the masterful skills of Scott Sanchez as we adapted to our users (school teams) and their different paces and needs.

The two-day summit, led by Scott Sanchez and supported by his coaches, our global mentors (Laura, Bo, Shelley, and Anona) and my fearless co-director, Bob Ryshke, was an intense, exhausting yet exhilarating experience. We started off on Saturday with all 85+ of us sharing "how we were feeling" (we have some folks with extraordinary humor!) and what we as teams were "amazed to realize"--our big surprises--during the past 8 weeks. Often we heard that the power of the empathy phase to uncover unrealized needs and user groups. Who knew that a parent's "fear of failure" and a focus on specific outcomes (grades) was limiting student explorations and risk-taking thereby inhibiting curiosity?

We gave teams a large chunk of time, heavily supported by the mentors and coaches, to narrow to one user and refine their POV statements. Key questions: Who/what is most important to us? Where might there be a POV that is a good starting point? What is our team excited about?


Teams were then prepped on how to ideate (generate ideas that might solve the HMW question modified if needed by the POV),  and given a half hour to brainstorm. A critical part of this process is honoring each idea, (no matter how outlandish) and dismissing any thoughts about feasibility. As teams worked, it was fascinating to watch so many try to stay in the comfort zone of what they knew was possible (logical problem-solving) as opposed to stepping beyond (why wouldn't we consider teacher sabbaticals?). 

After a cross-team lunch break, and using a color-coded and scaled voting system (safe bet to long shot), individuals on each team voted on the ideas they most wanted to move forward. Within a short period of time, ideas were narrowed to 1 or 2. Scott provided an overview on prototyping, along with a few exercises, and teams were off to develop and then test their initial prototypes with the other teams for the rest of the afternoon. 

What the planning and mentoring team was amazed to realize at this end of Day 1 was how tired we all were and how tired the teams were. The pace of the day was intense, and people left really excited, but the teams were all in different places. Some teams were very clear on their POV and their initial prototype/feedback cycle gave them a lot to work with. Other teams were less clear on their POV, received some valuable feedback, and would need to iterate their POV and/or their prototype and to gain more feedback the next day. So, we adjusted...

Day 2 came with larger blocks of time for the teams to dig deep on their POVS and prototypes. Mid-morning we brought everyone back together (in cross school groups) to workshop storytelling in preparation for the afternoon presentations and demos. A highlight of the storytelling time together was "storytelling in the round"--a bit of improv and yes-and's as public and private school educators at each table built on the story feed from one another.

The presentations and demos (skits for the most part) were as unique as the individuals, schools, and the defined needs and solutions. We were amazed to see the variety, the palpable sense of accomplishment, and the rich sense of a great year ahead of us as we continue to collaborate and encourage one another. 

Each school team is being asked this week to respond to a series of questions about their experience to date, including what they are working on and where they are going next. We will share each of those responses, one by one, here on the blog. It is hoped that this will not only help our school teams help one another (they also have a private Google + community and some face to face visits in planning for the fall), but give the broader community an opportunity to ask questions, offer suggestions, cheer them on. 

Finally, we are deeply grateful to our sponsor and friend, Blake Williams at Proper Medium, for his team's presence at our summit. Forthcoming will be a PR piece, a slightly longer documentary, and a full archive of footage from the afternoon presentations. 

Again, we thank our sponsors and potential new funders who showed up to support all the schools: The R. Howard Dobbs, Jr. Foundation, Westminster Schools, The Lovett School, and the Zeist Foundation. 

Over the past 8 weeks our 11 school teams have been pushing through the normal time constraints ( ever walk a day in the life of a dedicated educator?), two weeks of unimaginable dysfunction (snow+Atlanta, you get the picture), and the interruption of spring break and/or test prep on their way to developing empathy. 

What is empathy? 

The empathy phase of design thinking is what differentiates this process in so many ways from other iterative problem-solving cycles. It is the place of beginning, a place where we move outside of ourselves and honor first and foremost the human beings who might be impacted by any "solution" we could conjure up. Through interviews and observations of those whom we believe to be most closely connected to the issues we've identified, as well as explorations into the attitudes and behaviors of those in analogous contexts, we are able gather a great deal of data about the issues each school has identified.

What did this look like?

For every school team the process was as different as the HMW (How Might We) questions they were exploring. In most every case individual, pairs, or small groups interviewed faculty, parents, administrators, and/or students at their school. In some cases, schools visited one another ("What does innovation look like at your school?"), resources were shared ("Here's a short book on developing curiosity that may be helpful"), and field trips arranged ("What might entrepreneurs at Atlanta Tech Village know about learning and failure that might inform us?). Teams would meet as regularly as they could (face to face, using Google Hangout, group texts) to share their "aha's," tell stories ("I met Susan S., parent of a 7th grader who is not comfortable engaging her child's teachers because of her own lack of high school education"), and plan next steps. The data gathering was the largest part of the 8 weeks, but then what?

 Define: Identifying your User and Developing POV (Point of View) Statements

About a month into this process, Scott Sanchez pulled together all the facilitators (one team member from each school) and the mentors (Anona Walker from Fulton County's Superintendents Office, Shelley Paul from Woodward Academy, Bo Adams from Mount Vernon Presbyterian School, and me (Laura Deisley from The Lovett School) to build our capacity for coaching the teams through this next phase. Once all the data was collected, it becomes time to synthesize the data without losing track of potentially insightful individual points of view that were uncovered. There is really no way to do this without a whole team gathering face to face to unpack and sort what we were finding. Back in each school, and massive amounts of sticky notes (each with a single idea) later, teams began to clarify their issues and focus in on the particular needs and insights of various users. For each user, they created POV (Point of View) Statements. Something like this: 

The POV process was a challenging one for all schools, although not as challenging as the pressure to choose ONE POV to bring to the March 21-22 summit. As teams worked through the POVs, they began to uncover users that had a stake in the issue (teachers in the case of the school interviewing parents about parental involvement, and teachers again in another case of the school interviewing students about when they feel valued in their school). By going through the process of assimilating and reflecting on the various POVs, teams became challenged to both pick one (DEFINE) and to make sure the one they were picking would allow them to go through the rest of the process (IDEATE, PROTOTYPE) with something that everyone cared about and could generate a solution that could effect enough change.

Scott reminded us all then, and as you'll read he reminded us again at the Summit, that picking the right problem to solve isn't easy. Once you've got your user, have you written the POV to get the right altitude? And to solve the right problem? 

The challenge for the Summit was to come prepared with 1-3 POV statements, but prepared to narrow quickly on the beginning of Day One.

Many thanks to the mentors who went out and spent hours with the facilitators and teams to get all schools to "go mode."