After some great discussion with my team, here’s where I netted out Dave. I really like the update though I tend to prefer the simplicity of the earlier version. Partly because we tend to conduct this exercise in conjunction with multiple others that cover some of the additional sections. In addition, when I introduce the “old” version I like the fact that the content on one side is observed (what they say and do) while the content on the other side is inferred (what they think and feel) since it reinforces that our empathy should come from direct observation and contact.
What I really like in this update is the introduction of what they see and hear, which influences the other elements of the map. Going forward we may swap or add one or both of these depending on what’s relevant to our subject.
I think the contextual parts cause dissonance for us because we dive deeply into those in separate activities. Even though the change to “what do they need to do” takes the focus away from our motivations, it’s still a future state question and we’d be making assumptions or proposing solutions. It’s early for that if you’re doing this exercise when we usually do, which is at the beginning to set a foundation of empathy in our process. And the “who are we empathizing with” is handled by our persona, also upstream from this exercise.
That said, even though I prefer the simplicity of the four quadrant version and think the character drawing in the center is way more valuable than we give it credit for (this version eliminates that) I appreciate the alignment of the setting, saying, and hearing areas with the eyes, mouth, and ears. Nice touch :)
Hope this helps and thanks again for keeping things moving ever forward Dave!
