Throwing out the “First Pitch”: Reflections on the Teachers College Innovation Award Competition
So my first pitch competition is in the can, and now that I’ve (almost) recovered from the sleepless nights leading up to it, I wanted to reflect on the experience. Even though our team did not win INA, we were picked as one of 4 finalists and given the chance to present to a panel of judges that included the president of the College and two alumni who are now running successful edtech startups. I’m so proud of the effort our team put in and of the final product. A few thoughts on the process:
Hackathon: “I do not think that means what you think it means.”
The first step in our journey to INA was a two-day hackathon facilitated by professors from the Communication, Media and Learning Technologies Design Department at TC. In Zoom calls leading up to the hackathon, my teammates and I were preparing for what we assumed would be two intense days of coding and prototyping and discussing which languages our prototype would need to be built with and how (in the hell) we were going to learn them over the course of a few days. But contrary to our expectations, hackathon turned out to be a crash course in empathy, writing problem statements, ideation, and low-fidelity prototyping — in essence, the design thinking process. I’d already been introduced to design thinking concepts in my Management of Edtech Resources class, taught by Don Buckley and Reshan Richards, but here was a real-world application of those concepts. For instance, this was my first time actually turning a problem generated by this type of a process into a low-fidelity prototype that could be tested. And when I tell you we made a low-fidelity prototype, I mean loooow:
I had no idea going into the competition how common paper prototyping was, even among some of the biggest names in Silicon Valley. Using paper prototypes, we were able to test quickly and gather user feedback. The feedback was invaluable in refining our concept.
Empathy for the user, empathy for your teammates
Through the process of refining our user persona using empathy maps and other methods, I really felt connected to this fictional person and their needs and wants. I could more easily imagine whether a given solution thrown out during the ideation process would address their pain points.
I really felt like the empathy I felt toward our target user — a woman interested in switching into a tech field but facing various obstacles — carried over to how I felt toward my teammates. Understanding what each person is looking to contribute to or get out of a project — what skills they want to hone or show, or what artifacts they might want for their personal portfolio — goes a long way toward managing the inevitable struggles that come with group decisionmaking.
Leading as letting go
In the early stages, the “deliverables” to the INA award steering committee were mainly documents —defining and redefining our problem and backing up our proposed solution with research. With my background in editing and writing, I ended up being the point person for a lot of copy writing and final edits. At times, this made me feel like the “de facto” leader of the group, and I did enjoy having that role when it fell to me (there, I admit it). But throughout the process, I was constantly being reminded of the importance of letting go and constantly amazed at the work produced by my teammates. Sometimes, it was a matter of circumstance — brain zapped from lack of sleep, I’d be creeping along while others were zooming ahead and making breakthroughs. Or alternately, wrapped up in my own tasks and sometimes purposefully abstaining from what seemed like chaotic brainstorming around pitch slides or videos, I would look up to find my teammates had done amazing work that my brain probably couldn’t even generate.
